Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 352 823 FL 020 850
AUTHOR Chamot, Anna Uhl; And OthersTITLE A Study of Learning Strategies in Foreign Language
Instruction: Findings of the Longitudinal Study.INSTITUTION Interstate Research Associates, Inc., Rosslyn, VA.SPONS AGENCY Office of International Education (ED), Washington,
DC.
PUB DATE Mar 88NOTE 237p.; For related documents, see FL 020 851-852.PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143) Information
Analyses (070)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PC10 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Academic Achievement; *Cognitive Processes; College
Students; Comparative Analysis; Higher Education;High Schools; High School Students; LanguageProcessing; *Learning Strategies; LongitudinalStudies; Metacognition; Russian; *Second LanguageLearning; Skill Development; Spanish; *Study Skills;Tables (Data); Teacher Effectiveness; ThinkingSkills
ABSTRACTPart of a larger research project, this longitudinal
study analyzed differences between effective and ineffective highschool and college language learners and changes in strategy usesover time. Related studies include a descriptive study, whichidentified learning strategies used in studying foreign languages,and a course development study, in which foreign language instructorsteach their students to apply learning strategies. The longitudinalstudy was conducted during years 2 and 3 of the project with 55 highschool students enrolled in Spanish and 25 college students enrolledin Russian. Findings to date indicate that effective students (50)and ineffective students (30) Spanish or Russian tend to use similarstrategies to perform language tasks but that effective students arelikely to use a wider range of strategies, as well as a greaternumber of strategies. Examples of metacognitive strategies includeself-monitoring, self-evaluation, selective attention, problemidentification, and planning; cognitive strategies include usingresources, elaboration, note-taking, making inferences, summarizing,translation, deduction, and substitution. However, qualitativedifferences were found in the way that effective versus ineffectivestudents applied learning strategies, with the effective learnersappearing to use more "on-target" strategies and seeming to be morepurposeful in their strategy use and in matching strategies to tasks.Appendices present samples of student workbook pages, tables offrequency of strategy use by Spanish students, and readingproficiency guidelines. Contains 41 references and 33 exhibits.(LB)
***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.
***********************************************************************
A STUDY OF LEARNING STRATEGIESIN FOREIGN LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION:
Findings of the Longitudinal Study
byAnna Uhl Chamot
Lisa KtipperMaria V. Impink-Hernandez
March 1988
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educationist Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESIC)
INFORMATIONCENTER (ER
his document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it
C Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction Quality
Points of new or opinions slated in this docu-ment do not necessarily represent officiet0ERI Posthon or policy
This study is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, InternationalResearch and Studies Program in Washington, D.C. The views, opinions, andfindings contained in this report are those of the authors and should not beconstrued as an official Department of Education position, policy, or decisionunless so designated by other official documentation.
0BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Irani.= as asamvirsacTo
CHAPTER 1: Introduction and Literature Review
Introduction
Page
I-1
I-1
Research on Learning Strategies 1-2
Second Language Acquisition Theory 1-6
CHAPTER II: Methodology of the Longitudinal Study II-1
Overview II-1
Subjects 11-2
Instruments 11-5
The Spanish Instruments 11-5
Spanish Proficiency Tests 11-5Spanish Interviewer Guide and Student Workbooks 11-6
The Russian Instruments 11-7
Russian Reading Proficiency Tests 11-7Russian Interviewer Guides and Student Workbooks 11-9
Procedures II-10
Student Training II-10Data Collection Sessions II-11
Data Analysis Plan
Categories of Analysis: Learning Strategies
MIKUMDZatiVLatraitaiaPlanningDirected AttentionSelective AttentionSelf-managementSelf-monitoringProblem IdentificationSelf-evaluation
CtIgnitive Strategies
and Their Definitions
4-/
11-12
11-19
11-19
11-2011-21
11-21
11-21
11-2211-22
11-23
11-2411-2411-2411-24
RepetitionRehearsalResourcingGroupingNote-taking
Table of Contents (continued) Page
Cognitive Strategies (continued)Deduction 11-25Substitution 11-25Contextualization 11-25Elaboration 11-25Summarization 11-27Translation 11-28Transfer 11-29Inferencing 11-29
Social/Affective StrategiesQuestioning for Clarification 11-29Self-talk 11-30
CHAPTER III: Results of the Longitudinal Study III-1
A. Results from Analyses of Russian Longitudinal Data 111-2
Categories for Comparing Students 111-2
Findings from Partial Analyses of the Data Collected fromStudents of Russian
Findings from Grammar Tasks
Findings from Listening Tasks
Findings from Comparing Grammar and ListeningTasks 111-13
Findings from Writing Tasks 111-16
Longitudinal Results: Spring 1986 and 1987 Writing 111-22
Summary Discussion of Russian Data 111-24
B. Results of the Spanish Think Aloud Data, Spring 1986 111-28
Effectiveness of Students 111-28
Criteria for Selection of Data to be Analyzed 111-31
Spanish 1 Results: Spring 1986 111-32
Vocabulary Fill-in-the-Blank: The Family Tree 111-35
Writing about the Family Tree 111-36
Reading and Grammar Cloze 111-40
Summary of Spanish 1 Spring 1986 Results 111-45
Table of Contents
Spanish 3 Results: Spring 1986
Strategy Use: Metacognitive, Cognitive, andSocial/Affective
Listening
Page
111-47
111-47
111-49
Writing 111-56
Organizational Planning 111-58Self-monitoring 111-61Self-evaluation 111-63Deduction 111-64Substitution 111-65
Reading and Grammar Cloze 111-66
Self-monitoring 111-66Self -evaluation 111-67Elaboration 111-68
Summary of Spanish 3, Spring 1986 Results 111-70
Spanish 5 Results: Spring 1986 111-72
Strategy Use: Metacognitive, Cognitive, andSocial/Affective 111-72
Writing 111-74
Reading and Grammar Cloze 111-80
Selective Attention 111-82
Self-monitoring 111-82Self-evaluation 111-83Translation 111-84Elaboration 111-85Inferencing 111-86
C. Longitudinal Comparisons with Spanish Students:Spring 1986 - Spring 1987 111-88
Effectiveness of Students 111-88
Longitudinal Comparisons: Some Considerations 111-91
Terminology Used in This Section 111-93
Table of Contents (continued) Page
Spanish 1/2 Longitudinal Results
Writing
111-94
111-94
Planning 111-102
Self-monitoring 111-103Elaboration 111-105
Reading and Grammar Cloze 111-106
Spanish 3/4 Longitudinal Results III-111
Listening 111-111
Writing 111-118
Spanish 5/6 Longitudinal Results 111-125
Writing 111-125
Reading/Grammar Cloze 111-137
D. Summary and Conclusions
The Next Steps in the Study
111-145
111-152
References 111-153
APPENDICES
A ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines for Reading
B Tables of Frequency of All Strategy Use by Spanish 1Students in Spring 1986: Vocabulary, Writing, andReading/Grammar Close
C Spanish 1, Spring 1986 Student Workbook Pages:Vocabulary (The Family Tree) and Reading/GrammarCloze (A Typical Day For Juan and Rosa)
D Spanish 3, Spring 1986 Student Workbook Pages:Listening (Francisco Ramirez Velasco, minero),Writing (A Busy Intersection), and Reading/GrammarCloze (Un Viaje a Madrid)
E Tables of Frequency of All Strategy Use by Spanish 3Students in Spring 1986: Listening, Writing, andReading/Grammar Cloze
G
Table of Contents (continued)
Aug= (continued)
F Spanish 5, Spring 1986 Student Workbook Pages:Reading/Grammar Cloze (Los desaparecidos)
G Tables of Frequency of All Strategy Use by Spanish 5Students in Spring 1986: Reading/Grammar Cloze
H Spanish 4, Spring 1987 Student Workbook Pages:Listening (Prohibido Fumar en el Tranvia), andWriting (A Crowded Hotel Lobby)
LIST OF EIIIIIIITO
Exhibit Title of Exhibit Page
Percentage of Available Effective and Ineffective 11-3
Students of Spanish and Russian Participatingin Spring 1986 Think Aloud Sessions
11-2 Number of Effective and Ineffective Students 11-4Completing Think Aloud Sessions in Spring 1986and Spring 1987
11-3 Spring 1986 Thin Aloud Activities That WereAnalyzed
11-14
11-4 Method of Coding Student Think Aloud Transcripts 11-18
III-1 Spring 1986 Grammar Tasks: Dehydrated Sentences 111-5
Mean Uses of Strategies, More Effective Versus LessEffective First Year Students of Russian
111-2 Spring 1986 Listening Tasks, Mean Uses of Strategies, 111-9
More Effective Versus Less Effective First YearStudents of Russian
111-3 Summary of Strategy Usage for Grammar andListening Tasks of Varying Levels of Difficulty:More Effective Versus Less Effective First YearStudents of Russian
111-4A Summary of Strategy Usage for Writing Task:Comparison of More Effective, Less Effective,and Ineffective First Year Students of Russian
Writing Strategies Summary (continued)
Spring 1986 Planning and Writing Data forSelected Students of Russian
111-6 Summary of Strategy Usage for Writing Task:Comparison of Spring 1986 and Spring 1987 Datafor Two Students of Russian
111-7 Mean and Standard Deviation of Effective andIneffective Spanish Students on the SpanishProficiency Test (Spring 1986, Form A)
111-8 Number of Effective and Ineffective SpanishStudents Whose Data Were Analyzed, by Spring1986 Think Aloud Activity
111-9 Strategies Showing a Difference in Usage forEffective and Ineffective Spanish 1 Students,Spring 1986
U
111-14
111-18
111-20
111-21
111-23
111-30
111-33
111-34
List of Exhibits (continued) EAU
III-10 Excerpts from Writing Think Alouds of Ineffective 111-38and Effective Spanish 1 Students
III-11 Excerpt from an Effective Spanish 1 Student's 111-41Cloze Think Aloud, Spring 1986
111-12 Differences in Effective Spanish 1 Student Strategy 111-44Use Across Activities, Spring 1986
111-13 Proportions of Metacognitive, Cognitive, and Social/ 111-48Affective Strategies Used by Effective and IneffectiveSpanish 3 Students for the Listening, Writing, andCloze Activities
111-14 Strategies Showing a Difference in Usage for 111-57Effective and Ineffective Spanish 3 Students inWriting and Reading Cloze
111-15 Excerpts from Writing Think Alouds of Effective 111-59and Ineffective Spanish 3 Students
111-16 Excerpts from Cloze Think Alouds of Effective and 111-69Ineffective Spanish 3 Students
111-17 Proportion of Metacognitive, Cognitive, and Social/ 111-73Affective Strategies Used by Effective and LessEffective Spanish 5 Students for the Writing andCloze Activities, Spring 1986
111-18 Strategies Showing a Difference in Average UsageBetween Effective and Less Effective Spanish 5Students During Writing, Spring 1986
111-19 Strategies Showing Differences in Average UsageBetween Effective and Less Effective Spanish 5Students during the Cloze, Spring 1986
111-75
111-81
111-20 Longitudinal Comparison of Average Frequency and 111-95Percent of Strategy Use of Effective Beginning LevelSpanish Students During Writing
111-21 Excerpts of One Effective Student's Writing in III-100Spring 1986 and Spring 1987
111-22 Excerpts from One "Exceptional" Effective Student's 111-109Cloze Think Aloud in Spring 86 and Spring 87
111-23 Average Frequency and Percent of Strategy Use 111-112
of Effective Spanish 3/4 Students During ListeningActivity, Spring 1986 - Spring 1987
List of Exhibits (continued) Page
111-24 Average Frequency and Percent of Strategy Use 111-119
of Effective Spanish 3/4 Students During WritingActivity, Spring 1986 Spring 1987
111-25 Average Frequency and Percent of Strategy Useof Effective Spanish 5/6 Students During WritingActivity, Spring 1986 Spring 1987
H1-126
111-26 Comparison of Written Products of Two Effective 111-129Spanish 5/6 Students, Spring 86 and Spring 87
111-27 Longitudinal Comparison of Average Frequency and 111-139Percent of Strategy Use of Spanish 5/6 EffectiveStudents on Reading/Grammar Cloze Task,Spring 1986 - Spring 1987
111-28 A Matching of Strategy to Task 111-149
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
A STUDY OF LEARNING STRATEGIES
IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE I4STRUCTION
Introduction
This paper reports on the project "A Study of Learning Strategies in Foreign
Language Instruction" conducted by Interstate Research Associates under a
grant. awarded by the International Research and Studies Program of the U.S.
Department of Education. The project consists of three major studies: (a) a
Descriptive Study, which identified learning strategies used in studying
foreign languages; (b) a Longitudinal Study, which is analyzing differences
between effective and ineffective language learners and changes in strategy
uses over time; and (c) a Course Development Study, in which foreign language
instructors are teaching their students ,to apply learning strategies. The
Descriptive Study was completed in the first year of the project, and the
Longitudinal Study was initiated during this period. The Longitudinal Study
continues throughout the second and third years of the project, and is the
subject of this paper. The Course Description Study was initiated in the
second year of the project and will be completed in the third year.
Research and theory in second language learning strongly suggest that good
language learners use a variety of strategies to assist them in gaining
command over new language skills. Learning strategies are conscious
operations or steps used by a learner to facilitate the comprehension,
learning, or recall of information (Weinstein is Mayer, 1986). Second language
learners who use active and varied strategies to assist their learning tend to
be more effective learners than those who do not use strategies or who rely
upon simple rote repetition (O'Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Kupper, &
Russo, 1985a; Politzer & Mc6roarty, 1985; Rubin, 1975; Menden, 1985).
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Although some learners are adept at devising strategies to assist second
language acquisition, many others tend to be ineffective at developing
strategies and consequently may encounter difficulties in learning the new
language.
Research in Learning Strategies
Research in learning strategies in the second language acquisition literature
has focused for the most part on describing strategies used by successful
language learners. Research efforts concentrating on the "good language
learner" by O'Malley et al. (1985a; 1987) and others (Naiman, Frohlich,
Stern, & Todesco, 1978; Rubin, 1975; Wenden, 1983) have identified strategies,
either reported by students or observed in language learning situations, that
appear to contribute to learning. These efforts demonstrate that students do
apply learning strategies while learning a second language and that these
strategies can be described and classified.
A classification scheme proposed by Rubin (1975) subsumes learning strategies
under two broad groupings: strategies that directly affect learning
(clarification/verification, monitoring, memorization, guessing/inductive
reasoning, deductive reasoning, and practice), and those which contribute
indirectly to learning (creating practice opportunities and using production
tricks such as communication strategies). An alternative scheme proposed by
Neiman, Frohlich, Stern, and Todesco (1978) contains five broad categories of
learning strategies: an active task approach, realization of a language as a
system, realization of language as a means of communication and interaction,
management of affective demands, and monitoring of second language
performance. O'Malley et al. (1985a) investigated the types of learning
12I -2
strategies reported by effective learners of English as a second language, and
found that the strategies could be described in terms of metacognitive,
.cognitive, or social-affective processes. These findings were confirmed in
the Descriptive Study of the current project, which focused upon learners of
Russian and Spani'h (O'Malley, Chamot, Kupper, & Impink-Hernandez, 1987).
Oxford (1985) has.dentified similar strategy groupings under the categories
of indirect strategies (metacognitive) and direct strategies (cognitive),
following Rubin's (1975) classification scheme.
Metacognitive strategies can be conceptualized as serving an executive
function for the learner; they involve thinking about the learning proc 451
planning for learning, monitoring of comprehension or production while it is
taking place, and self-evaluation of learning after the language activity is
completed. Cognitive strategies are more directly related to individual
learning tasks and entail direct manipulation or transformation of the
learning materials (Brown & Palincsar, 1982). A third type of learning
strategy suggested in the literature on cognitive psychology indicates that
social and affective processes can also contribute to learning, which are most
clearly evidenced in cooperative learning (Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, &
Caapione, 1983; Slavin, 1980). Learners who ask questions for clarification
and interact with each other to assist learning, as well as those who are able
to exercise a degree of affective control, are also conscious of using
strategies which contribute to learning. Cooperative strategies have been
shown to enhance learning on a variety of reading comprehension tasks
(Dansereau & Larson, 1983) and other areas of the curriculum, such as langauge
arts, mathematics, and social studies (Slavin, 1980).
I - 3
BEST COP 4YA1LABLE
Another recently completed descriptive study compared strategies used by
ineffective and effective second language learners in various types of
listening comprehension tasks (O'Malley, Chamot, & Kupper, 1986). Both groups
of students used metacognitive, cognitive, and social-affective strategies to
assist comprehension and recall of the material listened to. The pattern of
strategy use was quite different, however, for the effective listeners. Not
only did effective listeners use strategies more frequently than did the less
effective students, but they differed ia the types of strategies they
preferred. Effective listeners made frequent and successful use of self-
monitoring, elaboration, and tnferencing, whereas ineffective listeners used
these strategies infrequently.
Studies of learning strategy applications in the literature on cognitive
psychology concentrate on determining the effects of strategy training for
different kinds of tasks and learners. Findings from these studies generally
indicate that strategy training is effective in improving the performance of
students on a wide range of reading and problem-solving tasks (e.g., Brown,
Bransford, Ferrara, & Campione, 1983; Chipman, Siegel, & Glaser, 1985:
Dansereau, 1985; Weinstein & Mayer, 1986; Wittrock, Marks, & Doctorow, 1975).
Research on training second language learners to use learning strategies has
emphasized applications with vocabulary tasks. Dramatic improvements in
individually presented vocabulary learning tasks have been reported in these
studies. The typical approach in this research has been either to encourage
students to develop their own associations for linking a vocabulary word with
its equivalent in the second language (Cohen & Aphek, 1980; 1981), or to train
students to use specific types of linking associations to cue the target word,
such as the keyword method (e.g., Atkinson & Raugh, 1975; Pressley, Levin,
4
Z4
Nakamura, Hope, Bisbo, is Toye, 1980). Generally, the strategy training is
given individually or is provided by special instructional presentations to a
group. Recently, a classroom-oriented approach to learning strategy training
was studied (O'Malley et al., 1985b). In this approach, intact classes of
second language students were taught to use learning strategies for three
different tasks, including two integrative language tasks (listening
comprehension and oral presentation). Results indicated that learning
strategy instruction was associated with greater proficiency in the speaking
task, and that learning strategy instruction also improved listening
comprehension for tasks that were not beyond the students' range of
competence.
Research in metacognitive and cognitive learning strategies also suggests that
transfer of strategy training to new tasks can be maximized by pairing
setacognitive strategies with appropriate cognitive strategies. Students
without metacognitive approaches are essentially learners without direction or
opportunity to plan their learning, monitor their progress, or review their
accomplishments and future learning directions.
Studies of learning strategies with second language learners have naturally
been influenced by theories in second language acquisition (as well as by
current information processing theories in cognitive psychology). Some of
these theories of second language acquisition are briefly discussed below to
identify cognitive processes that relate to learning strategies and how they
are used by second language learners.
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
I 5-5
Second Language Acquisition Theory
Theories of second language learning and proficiency often include a cognitive
component, but the role of learning strategies has remained vague. In
Cummins' (1984) model of language proficiency, tasks vary along a continuum
from cognitively undemanding to cognitively demanding, while language varies
along a continuum from context-embedded to context-reduced. Academic tasks,
for example, are cognitively demanding and usually require language in which
contextual cues for meaning are reduced. Tasks outside the classroom, on the
other hand, are relatively undemanding cognitively and are characterized by
language that either has rich contextual clues or is formulaic. The role of
learning strategies, although potentially located in the cognitive component
of this proficiency model, has never been expressly identified.
Other models of language competence also contain cognitive components but
leave the role of learning strategies ambiguous. For example, Canale and
Swain's (1980) model of communicative competence includes grammatical,
sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic competence. In this model, the
strategic component refers to communication strategies, which can be
differentiated from learning strategies by the intent of the strategy use.
Wong Fillmore and Swain's (1984) model of second language competence includes
a cognitive component as well as linguistic and affective components. Unlike
prior conceptual models, Wong Fillmore and Swain reserve an important role for
learning strategies in the cognitive component. Learning strategies are said
to be the principal influence on learning a second language for children,
whereas inherent developmental and experiential factors are primarily
responsible for first language learning, in their view. The types of
strategies described by Wong Fillmore and Swain appear to be more global than
those usually described in cognitive psychology, however, and the role they
BEST COPYMARIE "
play with regard to the other model components has not been identified.
While most second language models either fail to acknowledge learning
strategies at all or mention them only in passing, Bialystok (1978) includes
four categories of learning strategies in her model of second language
learning: inferencing, monitoring, formal practicing, and functional
practicing. In this model, learning strategies .re defined as "optimal means
for exploiting available information to improve competence in a second
language" (71). The type of strategy used by the learner will depend on the
type of knowledge required for a given task. Bialystok discusses three types
of knowledge: explicit linguistic knowledge, implicit linguistic knowledge,
and general knowledge of the world. She hypothesizes that inferencing may be
used with implicit linguistic knowledge and knowledge of the world.
Monitoring, formal practicing (such as verbal drills found in a second
language class), and functional practicing (such as completing a transaction
at a store) contribute both to explicit and implicit linguistic knowledge.
That is, strategies introduced explicitly in a formal setting can contribute
to implicit linguistic knowledge and therefore to students' ability to
comprehend and produce spontaneous language.
Bialystok's model can be contrasted to Krashen's Monitor Model (1982), which
does not allow for contributions of explicit linguistic knowledge (learning)
to implicit linguistic knowledge (acquisition). The Monitor Model includes
two types of language processes: "acquisition" and "learning." "Acquisition"
is described as occurring in spontaneous language contexts, is subsonscious,
and leads to conversational fluency. "Learning," on the other hand, Krashen
equates with conscious knowledge of the rules of language that is derived from
I -7 rti
formal and traditional instruction in grammar. The "eonitor" is a conscious
process which involves analyzing language production (either oral or written)
for correspondence to learned grammatical rules, which means that it is a
highly deliberate form of processing. In Krashen's view, "learning" does not
lead to "acquisition." Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable that
conscious use of learning strategies to develop language competence has no
role in this model.
McLaughlin, Rossean, and McLeod (1983) propose an information processing
approach to second language learning. In this theory, the learner is viewed
as an active organizer of incoming information with processing limitations and
capabilities. While motivation is considered to be an important element in
language learning, the learner's cognitive system is central to processing.
Thus, the learner is able to store and retrieve information according to the
degree to which the information was processed. Evidence for aspects of the
information processing model comes from studies of language processing and
memory. One implication of information processing for second language
acquisition is that learners actively impose cognitive schemata on incoming
data in an effort to organize that data. McLaughlin et al. (1983) proposed
that the learner uses a top-down approach (or knowledge-governed system) which
makes use of internal schemata as well as a bottom-up approach (or an input-
governed system) which processes external input to achieve automaticity. In
both cases, cognition is involved and the degree of cognitive involvement
required is set by the task itself. McLaughlin (1987) points out that both
controlled and automatic processing can be either explicit and conscious or
implicit and unconscious. Processing that occurs very quickly, whether
controlled or automatic, is generally not accessible to conscious thought,
whereas slower processing of either kind is available for conscious monitoring
and reflection.
Spolsky (1985) proposes a model of second language acquisition based on
preference rules. In his view, three types of conditions apply to second
language learning, one of which is a necessary condition and the other two of
which depend on the learner's preference, which. could be cognitive or
affective in origin. A necessary condition is one without which learning
cannot take place. Examples of necessary conditions in second langauge
learning are target language input, motivation, and practice opportunities. A
second type of condition is a gradient condition, in which the greater the
degree of the condition's occurrence, the more learning is likely to take
place. An example of a gradient condition might be the greater or lesser
degree to which a learner actively seeks out interactions with native speakers
of the target language, or the greater or lesser degree to which a learner can
fine tune a learning strategy to a specific task. The third type of condition
is one which typically, but not necessarily always, assists learning. An
example of a typicality condition might be that risk-taking. Outgoing
personalities tend to be good language learners as a rule, though in some
cases quiet and reflective learners can be equally or more effective (Saville-
Troika, 1984). This model is useful in accounting for such differences in
strategy use between effective and ineffective learners. Frequency of
strategy use can be seen as a gradient condition in which greater instances of
strategy use are likely to be associated with effective learning. Type of
strategies used can be seen as a typicality condition in which effective
learners typically use particular strategies that assist comprehension and
recall. This model accounts for variability in second language learning
outcomes through differing degrees of or preferences for application of
1 -9BEST COPY AVAILABLE
gradient and typicality conditions. In Spolsky's model, learning strategies,
while not specifically identified as such, would be part of the capabilities
and prior learning experiences that the learner brings to the task.
In conclusion, second language acquisition theories in which conscious
cognitive processes play an important role are the most useful in identifying
and explaining the role of learning strategies in second language learning.
In the next section we identify the research questions guiding the
Longitudinal Study and its methodology and results.
CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY OF THE LONGITUDINAL STUDY
Overview
Three major studies comprise "A Study of Learning Strategies in Foreign
Language Instruction." These are: (1) the Descriptive Study (completed),
where data were gathered by interviewing students in small groups
concerning the learning strategies they use in performing various language
learning tasks; (2) the Longitudinal Study (on-going), where data are being
gathered by interviewing students individually and presenting them with
representative language tasks to perform, during which they "think aloud";
and (3) the Course Development Study (on-going), where teachers are
identifying promising learning strategies students report using and are
providing their classes with explicit instruction in and opportunities to
practice these learning strategies.
The Descriptive Study was completed during the first year of the project;
results were presented in Chamot, O'Malley, nipper, & Impink-Hernandez
(1987). The Longitudinal Study is on-going; its methodology is reported in this
chapter and Year 2 results are presented in Chapter III. The Course
Development Study is also on-going. Its methodology and preliminary results
will be presented in subsequent reports.
As previously stated, the Longitudinal Study focuses on the learning of two
languages, Spanish and Russian. The intent of the study has been to follow
students across four semesters of language study (Spring 1986, Fall 1986,
Spring 1987, and Fall 1987). Once a semester, students meet individually with
an interviewer who presents them with representative language tasks to
perform. The students are asked to "think aloud" as they work to a
solution. Each sub-study (Russian and Spanish) has followed the same basic
procedures in terms of selecting and training the students, and similar
questions are asked during data collection. Differences between the sub-
studies will be noted where relevant.
Subjects
At the beginning of the Descriptive Study, teachers were asked to classify
their students as being effective, average, or ineffective language learners.
Those students designated as effective and ineffective were invited to
participate in the longitudinal sessions. Exhibit II-1 shows the number of
effective and ineffective students available in each language group, as well as
the number from whom Spring 1986 think aloud data were actually collected.
Spring 1986 marked the first longitudinal session and the largest group of
students to cooperate in the study. For this reason, comparisons between
effective and ineffective students will be made using the Spring 1986 data (see
Chapter III). Subsequent semesters show attrition shrinking the number of
students available to participate; Exhibit 11-2 presents the number of effective
and ineffective students who participated in the think aloud session one year
later (Spring 1987), and a categorization of why students dropped out of the
study (i.e., they graduated).
In both sub-studies, participation was strictly voluntary. However, the
university Russian students completed the think alouds in their free time,
EXHIBIT 11-1
Precentage of Available Effective and Ineffective
Students of Spanish and Russian Participating inSpring 1986
Think Aloud Sessions
Effective Students
Ineffective Students
Total Students
CLASS
Spanish 1
Spanish 3
Spanish 5
Subtotal
* eft.
...
u....
....
...
.b.
400
4.
mr
0
Of
$:
4.)
c..!F ..t,
!F
!?
444.
.44
ee
eQ
8. e
-o
.11
nct
...?
u...
415
....
.,
0L
.41
.1
QNr
dw
- ,1;
Tc.
36
12 7
55
o)
occ
....
*.,
...
..!"
0L0
.4)
.,!?'
0..!?
Q.o
4.
L..
0 Q4C
dip
21
58.3
12
100.0
7100.0
40
72.7
22 8
34
15 8 4
27
63.6
100.0
100.0
79.4
14 4 3
21
6 4 3
13
42.9
100.0
100.0
61.9
RusSian 1
Russian 3/4
Subtotal
TOTAL
10 6
16
6 2 8
60.0
33. 3
50.0
4 5 9
2 3 5
50.0
60.0
55.6
14 11 25
80
8 5
13
53
57.1
45.5
52.0
66.3
5035
70.0
30
18
60.0
* Students enrolled in class and
designated by the instructor as being effective or
ineffective language learners
+ Students who completed
a Think Aloud Session
23
EXHIBIT 11-2
Number of Effective and Ineffective StudentsCompleting Think Aloud Sessionsin Spring 1986 and Spring 1987
LanguageGroup
EffectiveSp86 Sp87
IneffectiveSp86 Sp87
TotalSp86 Sp87
Spanish 1 15 10 6 3 21 13
Spanish 3 8 5 4 1 12 6
Spanish 5 4 3 3 0 7 3
TOTAL,
SPANISH 27 17 13 4 40 22
Russian 1 6 4 2 0 6 4
Russian 3/4 2 2 3 0 5 2
TOTAL. 8 6 5 0 13 6RUSSIAN
Reasons for Attrition
Language
Groupof
Students GraduatedDroppedstudy
Not goodat TA Transferred Other Unknown
Spanish 1 Effective 5 1 1 3Ineffective 3 3
Spanish 3 Effective 3 1 1 1
Ineffective 3 1 2
Spanish 5 Effective 1 1
Ineffective 3 2 1
Russian 1 Effective 3 1 1 1
Ineffective 1 1
Russian 3 Effective 0 -Ineffective 3 1 1 1
TOTALS Effective 12 4 1 2 1 2 3Ineffective 13 4 8 0 1 0 0
while the Spanish students completed the interviews during their normal
class period, instead of attending class.
instruments
The instruments used in the two sub-studies were quite different, so they
will be discussed separately.
The Spanish Instruments. Five basic instruments were used to collect data
from the high school students studying Spanish: two proficiency tests; and
three student workbooks and interviewer guides.
Spanish Proficiency Tests. Two proficiency tests (each with an
alternate, equivalent form) were developed. in order to collect information
regarding each student's proficiency in the language. The test was first
administered in Spring 1986, the starting point of the Longitudinal Study. The
first proficiency test (Level 1-3) was used with those students who began the
study enrolled in Spanish 1. The second (Level 3-5) was used with those
students who began the study enrolled in Spanish 3 and 5. The material
included in each test was designed to increase in difficulty so that items
initially beyond a student would be within his capability by the time the
Longitudinal Study was completed and the test was administered again. In
this way, increases in student proficiency over time could be captured.
It was originally planned that students would take the proficiency test every
semester, but classroom and scheduling constraints made this impossible. As
a result, the test was administered only twice, once in Spring 1986 and again
in Spring 1987. (Results of the proficiency testing are provided in Chapter III.)
As mentioned above, an alternate form of each test was developed so that
students would not have to take the same test repeatedly. The alternate
form (Form B) of both proficiency tests was designed to be equivalent in
difficulty to Form A. Both forms addressed the same concepts and points of
knowledge a student of Spanish in the participating -school would typically be
required to learn. Each test at each level (Level 1-3 and Level 3-5) had the
following sub-parts: grammar, reading, fill-in-the-blank (doze), listening,
and a dictation. All sub-parts except the doze section were multiple-choice,
providing the students with four options from which to choose. Each test
took roughly 45 minutes to administer and came with a Test Administrator's
Guide. Students worked from a test booklet and marked their answers on a
separate Student Answer Sheet.
Spanish Interviewer Guides and Student Workbooks. These
instruments were designed to elicit "think aloud" information from students
on the mental processes they used during performance of a Spanish language
learning task. The student's task was to perform the language learning
activity and to report aloud what went through his or her mind while
working with the materials. Three separate interviewer guides and student
workbooks (Spanish 1, 3, and 5) were developed for each semesters data
collection. Students received the workbook targeted especially for the level of
Spanish they were studying. Each workbook contained separate language
learning activities designed to match the curriculum of the high school
involved in the study. The companion Interviewer Guide provided the
interviewer with a script with which to introduce each activity, copies of
what. the student received in his or her workbook, and probing questions the
interviewer was expected to ask to gather data from the student. The
1 -6 27
probing questions were the same, regardless of the level of the student (i.e.,
What are you thinking? or How did you figure that out?).
In Spring 1986, students were presented with the following five activities:
(1) fill-in-the-blanj& (5 sentences missing a word of vocabularyemphasized at the student's particular level - the family forSpanish 1, going to the doctor for Spanish 3, and the postoffice for Spanish 5);
(2) Writing in Spanish (for Spanish 1, writing 3-5 sentencesabout a family tree provided in their workbook; for Spanish3 and 5, writing a paragraph about a picture);
(3) Sneaking in Spanish (for Spanish 1, speaking about thestudent's own family; for Spanish 3, speaking about aninteresting trip; for Spanish 5, role playing mailing apackage);
(4) Listening (for Spanish 1, a 9-line dialogue; for Spanish 3, anextended monologue; for Spanish 5, a narrative story); and
(5) Reading and Grammar Cloze (a different doze passage for alllevels, appropriate in difficulty to the level of the student).
The five Spring 1986 activities were designed to take approximately 50
minutes to complete, the length of one class period. However, the data
yielded were so complicated and multi-faceted that it was decided that more
time was needed for each activity. Therefore, workbooks developed for
subsequent semesters contained only four activities: reading (without doze),
listening, writing, and reading doze.
Russian Instruments. Five basic instruments were used to collect data from
the university students studying Russian: two reading proficiency tests and
three student workbooks and interviewer guides.
atzsian Readint Proficiency Tests. Two reading proficiency tests (each
with an alternate, equivalent form) were developed in order to collect
1 1 - 7
23
information regarding each student's reading proficiency in the language.
The tests were first administered in Spring 1986, the starting point of the
Longitudinal Study. The first proficiency test was intended for use with
those students enrolled in Russian 1 and contained 23 items; the second was
intended for those enrolled in Russian 3 and 4 and contained 22 items. The
tests were specifically designed to determine proficiency as described in the
ACTFL proficiency guidelines (see Appendix A). Test 1 contained items ranging
from 0-level proficiency to 2-level proficiency. Test 2 contained items
ranging from 1-level proficiency to 3-level proficiency. The goals of the
university program are that graduates of the Russian program should
achieve at least a 2-level proficiency in reading. In keeping with the goals of
the program (giving the student functional proficiency in Russian), all items
on these tests were developed around authentic Russian materials (excerpts
from Russian newspapers and other publications).
As mentioned above, an alternate form of each test was developed so that
students would not have to take the same test in each year of the
Longitudinal Study. Due to scheduling constraints, however, the tests were
only administered twice, once in Spring 1986 and again in Spring 1987. The
alternate forms (Form B) of both reading tests contained items testing at the
same difficulty level of the ACTFL scale. All items were multiple choice,
providing students with four options from which to choose'., and were stated
in English. Students were given 30 minutes to complete the test designated
for their class level; they worked from a test booklet and marked their
answers on a separate Student Answer Sheet.
25
1-8
Russian Interviewer Guides and Student Workbooks. Three separate
interviewer guides and student workbooks (Russian 1, 3, and 4) weredeveloped for each semester's data collection. As in the Spanish study, these
instruments were designed to elicit "think aloud" information from students
on the mental processes they used during performance of language learning
tasks. The student's task was to perform the language learning activity and
to report aloud what went through his or her mind while working with the
materials.
Students received the workbook targeted for the level of Russian they were
studying. Each workbook contained a variety of language learning activities
such as grammar, fill in the blank, listening, reading, and writing. The
companion Interviewer Guide provided the interviewer with a script from
which to introduce each activity, copies of what the student received in his
or her workbook, and probing questions the interviewer was expected to ask
to gather data from the student. The probing questions were the same,
regardless of the level of the student (i.e., "Were there any words you didn't
understand? Could you figure them out? How did you figure them out?").
The activities presented to the Russian students in Spring 1986 were:
(1) Grammar (2 skeleton sentences presenting subject, verb inits infinitive form, and any direct or indirect objects. Thestudent had to form these "dehydrated" sentences intocomplete sentences);
(2) Fill in the Blank (2 sentences where a certain aspect of thesentence was missing; four options were presented below andthe student had to choose which option would appropriatelycomplete the sentence);
(3) =ening; Monoloej (for Russian 1, a monologue about thePushkin Russian Language Institute; for Russian 3 and 4, asummary of an interview with a famous Russian actress);
(4) Listening: Dialogue (for Russian 1, an excerpt entitled "Evameets Claus' friends"; for Russian 3 and 4, an excerpt from astory by Korneichuk);
(5) Writing (the same for all levels; students were given a list of10 topics from which to choose);
(6) amusing (used only for Russian 3 and 5 students; topic wasa role play where student was interviewed on Radio Moscowas an American studying in the Soviet Union); and
(7) Reading (used only as an optional activity for Russian 1
students; Russian 5 students received 2 separate readingpassages, one that corresponded to their level and a secondthat was purposefully beyond their level).
The Spring 1986 workbooks contained more activities than most students
could complete within the hour allotted for the Think Aloud Sessions. The
optional activities (such as reading for Russian 1 students) were included at
the end of the workbook, in the event that some students were able to
rapidly complete prior activities. As with the Spanish study, data collection
in subsequent semesters limited the number of activities in a think aloud
session, so that more time could be given to each activity.
Procedures
Procedures were divided into two stages: student training and actual data
collection.
Student Training. Because data were to be collected by asking student to
"think aloud" about how they performed various language learning tasks, it
was essential to give students: (a) a good understanding of what "think
aloud" meant, and (b) extensive practice in "think aloud" prior to actual data
collection. An hour-long training session was designed to train both Russian
and Spanish students in the think aloud technique; all students participating
in the study received this training in Spring 1986. Complete details of the
311 1 - 10
session are provided in the study's First Year Report (Chamot, O'Malley,
Kilpper, & Impink-Hernandez, 1987).
The training sessions with the Russian students ended with students making
appointments to participate in a data collection session. Students in the
Spanish study were to be drawn from class at the teacher's discretion;
scheduling appointments was not necessary.
Data Collection Sessions. Data collection sessions were conducted with
students individually and were tape recorded for ease of later analysis.
Sessions in the Spanish study were roughly 50 minutes long. The Russian
think aloud sessions averaged from one hour in length to one and a half
hours. A typical data collection session contained three stages: warm-up,
transition, and verbal report. Each step is described below.
Warm-up. The warm-up was designed to break the icebetween student and interviewer, as well as to gathergeneral background data about the student (i.e., whether thestudent had ever studied another foreign language). Thewarm-up took only 2-3 minutes.
Transition. The transition stage of each session was designedto reacquaint the student with the think aloud technique andto give him or her an opportunity to practice it prior toworking with the target language materials. The transitiontypically involved a math or logic problem stated in English.The student read the problem and "thought aloud" whileworking to its solution. The interviewer then asked thestudent to evaluate his or her own think aloud forcompleteness. In other words, did the student feel that whatthey had said aloud captured the thoughts they had hadwhile solving the problem?
Verbal Report Stage. Once the student had had theopportunity to practice thinking aloud, actual work withtarget language materials began. Students were guidedthrough the workbook activities by the interviewer andencouraged to relate what they were thinking as theyengaged themselves with the materials. General probingquestions were: "What are you thinking? Were there wordsyou didn't know?" There were also probing questions
0
specific to certain activities, such as "Are you listening wordby word or to groups of words or to whole sentences?" forthe listening activities. Interviewers were alert to nonverbalstudent behaviors such as looking back over work. Thesebehaviors elicited specific probes, such as "I see you'rechecking your work. What are you looking for?"
Because students in the Spanish study were taken from class in order to
complete a think aloud session, there was little incidence of students backing
out of the study. However, because participation in the Russian study
required students to use their free time to complete a think aloud session,
there were more incidences of missed appointments and student withdrawal.
Exhibit II-1 shows the number of students available to participate in the
Spring 1986 sessions and the actual number who did. Exhibit 11-2 shows the
number of students who participated in the Spring 1987 data collection as
well.
Data Analysis Plan
The data analysis plan initially proposed was similar to that used with
interviews in a prior ESL study conducted by O'Malley et al. (1985a). In that
study, each data collection session was tape recorded for ease of later
analysis, which involved listening to the tapes and extracting incidences of
strategy use described by students. Verbatim transcripts were notnecessary.
However, the think aloud data generated by students in the present study
was so complex and subtle that the original abbreviated method of extracting
incidences of strategy use was not possible. Instead, verbatim transcripts of
the data collection sessions were made, excluding only those comments made
by either the student or the interviewer that were not directly relevant to
I 1 - 1 2
the task at hand. These comments, many of which were conversational in
nature, were merely summarized on the transcript (i.e., "student talked
about how he learns vocabulary").
Because of the additional time required to prepare and analyze verbatim
transcripts, only selected activities at each level of language study were
analyzed. Decisions were made based upon interviewer and transcriber
impression as to the richness of the emerging data. For example, Spanish 1
students were asked to listen to a short dialogue between two friends.
Although the passage had not been developed to be excessively difficult, even
the most effective students understood very little of it. A decision was made,
then, not to analyze the listening data at the Spanish 1 level because it
seemed to consist largely of "I didn't understand any of that." The converse
was true at the Spanish 5 data, where the students were so proficient at
listening that the passage was too simple. Students had little to say about
the strategies they used to understand, so the decision was made not to
analyze these data either. Attention was directed instead to activities such
as reading and writing, where the think alouds showed complex strategies in
use. Exhibit 11-3 lists the activities for which data analysis was conducted
for each level of study for both Spanish and Russian students.
Develonint an Aocroach to Coding. Selected activities in the verbatim
transcripts were coded for incidences of strategy use by students. As a basis
for coding, the three members of the research team independently coded one
"test" transcript from a Spanish 3 student, then compared and discussed the
results of their coding. Although agreement as to how the student's think
aloud reflected strategy use was quite high, there were also many areas
EXHIBIT II - 3Spring 1986 Think Aloud Activities That Were Analyzed
Language
Group Activities That Were Analyzed
Spanish 1
Spanish 3
Vocabulary (of the Family)Writing (about the Family Tree)Reading/Grammar Cloze (A Typical Day)
Listening (Monologue about a Miner)Writing (about a busy city street intersection)Reading/Grammar Cloze (Juanita's Trip to Madrid)
Spanish 5 Writing (about a busy city street intersection)Reading/Grammar Cloze (Los desaparecidos)
Russian 1 Dehydrated Sentences(Victor doesn't speak Russian poorly...)(Boris corresponds with, these girls...)
Listening(Monologue: Pushkin Institute)(Dialogue: Eva meets Claus' Friends)
Writing (on a choice of topics)
where extensive discussion was needed in order to clarify the working
definitions of the strategies.
This initial review of a think aloud protocol revealed, too, that the data
required predominately qualitative rather than quantitative treatment. As
will be seen repeatedly throughout this report, the incidence of a strategy use
may not be nearly so important as how the strategy is used. Further,
although each interview followed the structure and order of the workbook
designed for data collection, each student reacted in unique ways to the
language stimuli and to the interview situation itself. This is particularly
true for the Russian students who participated in the interviews during
their free time; as a result, academic and social demands at the time of the
interview often influenced their performance. When these students were
relatively free of competing time demands, they generally spent more than
an hour in the interview session, working slowly and meticulously through
the various tasks. But when these students were plagued by other
commitments, their level of task engagement declined. Another example of
external factors impacting upon the interview situation is one Russian
student who was interviewed just after failing a Russian test. Her level of
concentration throughout the interview was understandably low, although
she did not want to reschedule. Thus, such uncontrollable influences of
context yielded Russian data that could be compared across interviews only
with great caution.
Another factor which discouraged using a predominantly quantitative
approach to analyzing the Russian data in particular was that the nature of
coursework offered by the university made comparisons between effective
and ineffective students difficult. The university offers two Russian
language programs, one of which is highly intensive. In the intensive
program, classes meet four days each week for two hours each day. Upon
completing the first year of the intensive program, students move to an
intensive "level three" program. In the other "regular" program, students
meet only one hour per day and, upon completion of two semesters of study,
move to a non-intensive, "level two" program. The sample of students
includes small numbers of participants in both types of programs. Thus, the
subsample of students, for example, in the second semester of Russian study
includes both students enrolled in the intensive and non-intensive programs.
Ranking these students as more or less effective in language learning, as
compared with each other, must be handled carefully given that onlystudents judged to be relatively effective learners are allowed to continue in
the intensive program and that intensive students' exposure to Russian study
doubles that of non-intensive students in their first year in the university
programs.
The strongest justification, however, for using a predominately qualitative
approach to data analysis comes from the data itself. The transcripts
produced extremely rich and multi-faceted data of a somewhat unexpected
nature. Categories of analysis developed during the Descriptive Study
(reported in Chamot et al., 1987) were inadequate to capture the extent of
variation in applying task performance strategies to activities undertaken by
subjects in the interviews. The descriptive study categories of analysis were
developed from retrospective, self-reports of techniques used to perform
tasks in foreign language study. In contrast, the think aloud protocols
produced data that reflected what subjects actually did while processing
I - 16
language tasks. Analytic categories appropriate for the retrospective data
were not sufficiently detailed to capture performance data.
Therefore, a collaborative and qualitative coding approach evolved as a means
of dealing with and resolving some of the very intricate problems of
analyzing such complicated data. Each member of the research team coded
transcripts individually, marking sections where applications of strategies
were particularly involved for later, Joint discussion. Coding consisted of
underlining the key phrases in the students' think aloud transcripts that
indicated use of a strategy, and writing the strategy name alongside the text.
This method is illustrated in Exhibit 11-4, which presents a portion of one
transcript and the coding it received.
Frequent meetings to discuss coding difficulties and discoveries served to
make the coding as consistent as possible across transcripts and sub-studies.
Interestingly, although each coder worked initially in isolation, the types of
problems and interesting strategy applications that each marked for later
discussion tended to be similar in nature, leading to fresh insights into how
students actually use strategies when working with the foreign language, as
well as the nature of the strategies themselves.
Following are the revised categories of analysis used to code the think aloud
transcript data. Examples of data excerpts and explanations of modifications
to the original categories are included where appropriate.
EXHIBIT II 4Method of Coding Student Think Aloud Transcripts
Student is beginning to write the first sentence in her paragraph, working from a picture of a crowdedhotel lobby. She has already briefly analyzed the picture for what she knows in Spanish and hasdecided that she is going to writs about the man on the phone..
St:
Int:
St:
Hm.Aanjust make up a story? It can be as crazy as I want it to be1,
Absolutely.1 b
Hm...Mister...hm...(elmost inaudibly. to self) I forget Spanish lest
names. tlistr...hm...
Int: What are you thinking?
St.: I was trying to think of people that I know that are Spanish and that
have last names. (pause) (-Senor Cardenas.
Int: After Senora Cardenas? (a Spanish teacher t the student's school')
St: Yeah. (laughs) Thats who I was thinking of. Hm.italks on the
telephone... (writes 'Senor Cardenas llama per telifono.-)
Int: (observing student finishing sentence) Was that hard or did it. come
naturally?
(St: It came naturally. He is talking to... (writing) I I think - is this
right? I don't knovs.
Int: (reading what student has written) Esti Hernando...
St.: To... (writes "s")
Int: (reading) A... what did you just think titer ? You took a long time.
St: C o L I v e s trying t o think if I had to hoe or not.(Stiore
Ortega's* always you have to have personal 'a'. you have to have
it, you have to have it." She yells at when we daft. Hint.tt...his...
wife (finishes writing sentence).
Int: You weren't sure about esti 11 . Whet was the problem?
St.: Yeah. If l was ing, like. 'he is talking to: Right now. If I was
doing that right. but well. like. the present. the pest. the future, and
the present participle. And she always, he is. he is ti talking with
someone or he is studying or something, so I figure, Mat be
Int: And noose - you Just know It?
St: Yeah.(ittas just. like. trying to think of who he could be talking to.
Trying to get somebody in my mind.
Names of the teachers have been changed. (Sp2o18, Spring 1987 Writing Think Aloud)
- 3BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Categories of Analysis: Learning Strategies and Their Definitions
METACOGNITIVE CATEGORIES
Metacognitive strategies involve thinking about the learning process,planning for learning, monitoring the learning task, and evaluating how wellone has learned.
L Planning: Previewing the organizing concept or principle of ananticipated language task; proposing strategies for handling an upcomingtask; generating a plan for the parts, sequence, main ideas, or languagefunctions to be used in handling a task.
This category collapses the previous categories of Advance Organization and
Organizational Planning, which had been applied exclusively the
comprehension and production tasks, respectively. The think aloud data
revealed that students use both general and specific types of planning
strategies for both comprehension and production tasks. In listening tasks,
for example, some students would first seek a general sense of the topic they
would be hearing about, then would generate phrases, words, and ideas
associated with the topic that were likely to be included in the upcoming
passage.
For instance, one Russian student (*01), enrolled in the first year intensive
program, began preparing to listen to a passage about the Pushkin Language
Institute as follows:
[Reading the introduction and questions] Who studies at theinstitute? Where do the students live? Urn ... OK, OK, I justthought, where do the students live? The thing that came intomy head was obshcheahitie. [Student starts noting vocabularyitems in workbook.] Ok, now matemati-, I'm Just thinking ofthings like that. [Student notes title.] OK, Pushkin LANGUAGEInstitute? So it's gonna be easy, yaajk, whatever ...
This student's preparation includes both general preview, gaining a sense of
the topic, and a specific generation of language that could occur in the
upcoming passage.
1 - 1 9
In the same way, productive tasks, like writing, reveal uses of both general
and specific planning strategies. Students planned their approaches to
writing (planning to compose) (e.g., " ... just make myself a little outline of
what I'm gonna talk about, you know ... ", Rusl*2), the general content of
their essays (planning at the discourse level) in terms of what they hoped to
accomplish (to do) (e.g., "I would want to get into the philosophy of what the
play was about ... ", Rusl*3) and what they would say (to say) (e.g., "Urn,
we've been working a lot with getting tickets, ah, I could use the fact that,
uh, didn't have a ticket, I can write about that", Rusi *3). In writing,
students also planned at a more specific level, sentence by sentence (e.g.,
"I'm just trying to think of a good way to start it. I'm thinking if I should
say u menya how many brothers and sisters ... ", Rusl#1).
2.. Directed Attention: Deciding to attend (or attending) in general to alearning task and to ignore irrelevant distractors.
Previously, this strategy was limited to pre-task enactment. The think aloud
data revealed that students occasionally, consciously, force themselves to pay
attention to a task in progress. As an example, presented below are one
Russian student's pre-task and "on-line" decisions to direct his attention to a
listening activity:
PRE-TASK:Int: Are you thinking about anything in particular?St: I'm telling myself to be sure to listen to, you know, the words.
DISCUSSION OF "ON-LINE" TASK:St: ... what I was focusing on Pushkin Institute and what goes on
there, and I think I understood, you know, I just, mentally, keptmy mind about it. (Rusle6)
4
ii -20
selective Attention: Deciding to attend (or attending) to specific aspects oflanguage input or situational details that assist performance of a task.
Again, the notion of "deciding in advance" has been deleted from the definition
of selective attention. In listening, students would decide in advance to listen
for specific words, content, or grammar points, and then, in fact, attend to
those selected features while the passage was playing.
PRE-TASK:St: So I'm going to listen to how many speakers there are gonna
be ...
DISCUSSION OF "ONLINE" TASK:St: The voices, you know, I'm milling through which voice
belonged to which character, more or less, and, urn, I didn'ttry to get every single word ...
Self - management: Understanding the conditions that help one success-fully accomplish language tasks and arranging for the presence of thoseconditions; controlling one's language performance to make maximumuse of what is already known.
An example of self-management, occurring frequently among both the
Russian and Spanish students as they wrote, is when a student deliberately
uses only words and phrases in his or her active vocabulary and avoids the
use of dictionaries for translation purposes. Another example of the way a
student might use self-management is: "I'll write about the guys playing the
radio first, cos that's most familiar" (Sp3 *09).
,pelf- monitoring,: Checking, verifying, or correcting one's comprehensionor performance in the course of a language task.
This category has been modified to account:
(a) for what students are monitoring, i.e., comprehension inlistening and reading tasks, and for their language productionand style and alma in writing; and their choice of Itrategiesfor doing a task (Rusi#7, in writing refers to a textbook(resourcing) and exclaims, "Oh, this isn't helping me at all ...well, I'll ,just stick with that ... ");
I 1 -21 4 2
(b) for their styles of monitoring - students monitor visually('Now that doesn't look right", Rusl*I) and auditorially ("Yeah,I guess that sounds right, okay", Rusl#1);
(c) for their level of concern in monitoring - word, phrase, orsentence levels; and
(d) of acts previously undertaken or possibilities considered(double check) (while listening, "All right, I just, at first,assumed, I guess, that he teaches there and then I all of asudden remembered the uchitsya or some form of uchit'syaand I thought, so, no, he studies there ... ", Rusle4).
Previous research (O'Malley et al., 1986) showed that self-monitoring
strategies discriminate between effective and ineffective language learners.
As will be discussed later, the fact of self-monitoring may not be asimportant as the type of monitoring employed by more and less effective
students with respect to various tasks.
k. Problem Identification. Explicitly identifying the central point needingresolution in a task, or identifying an aspect of the task that hinderssuccessful accomplishment of that task.
This is a new coding category of an exploratory nature. While recognizing its
importance, we postpone discussion of problem identification until further
data analysis is conducted.
2. Self- evaluation: Checking the outcomes of one's own languageperformance against an internal measure of completeness and accuracy;checking one's language repertoire, strategy use or ability to performthe task at hand.
This category has been broadened from the original "checking one's work"
type of self-evaluation to account for other ways in which students also
evaluate themselves. These include evaluation of:
(a) Production, as when students finish the task at hand and return tocheck their work;
1 1 - 2 2
(b) performance, as when students finish the task at hand and offerjudgments about how they felt they did ("I'm surprised I got stuck onsome verbs", Sp3 *02);
(c) ability, as in "I'm the worst with verbs" (Sp3 *08) or "See, wehaven't learned the irregulars... I still think I can guess, though"(Sp3e03);
(d) their stratestv use, as in "I should have read through the wholesentence, and I didn't" (Sp3 *O1); and
(e) language repertoire, operating at the word, phrase, sentence, orconcept level, as in "I don't know the subjunctive of poder" (Sp3#05).
One particular type of self-evaluative comment was not coded as self-
evaluation, but rather as elaboration/self-evaluation. (and tallied as
elaboration). This type of remark seemed to be more a casual self-
observation or expression of emotion than a seriously intended self-
evaluation, as in these examples from the writing activity, "See, I always get
screwed up with sem'ya, plural ... " (Rusl *7) and "This is awful!" (Sp3*06).
COGNITIVE STRATEGIES
Cognitive strategies involve interacting with the material to be learned,manipulating the material mentally or physically, or applying a specifictechnique to a learning task.
L. Repetition: Repeating a chunk of language (a word or phrase) in thecourse of performing a language task.
The simplest form of repetition seen in the think aloud data was when the
interviewer supplied the student with a missing word and the student
repeated it. Certain students were also observed to use repetition in
conjunction with resourcing, monitoring and, occasionally, planning. With
resourcing and planning, the repetition behaviors appeared to act largely as
techniques for holding a thought in mind, while accomplishing some other
activity. With monitoring, the repetition appeared to be an integral part of
sorting through linguistic accuracies, by playing the language sequence off an
4 -1:1 1 - 2 3
"ear." For instance, Rusl#1, writing: "OK, so uchutsya, uchut-sya. Urn. V
institute. Right? Yeah. We're at school. Right. Institut-e, v institute, My s
bratorn uchutsya v institute. Okay."
2. Rehearsal: Rehearsing language presumed to be needed for a task, withattention to meaning.
3. Resourcinsk: Using available reference sources of information about thetarget language, including dictionaries, textbooks, and prior work of thestudent.
4. Grouping: Ordering, classifying, or labelling material used in a languagetask based on common attributes.
This category had previously been conceptualized as an activity students
engaged in while learning (i.e., upon hearing that the root of querer in the
preterite is "quis-", this Spanish 3 student (#01) remarks, "Oh, so it is like
quisiera"). The think aloud data clearly revealed that grouping functions at
the time of recall as well, as in this student trying to think of the word
prima (cousin): "It's like grab one and say, that doesn't sound right, say
well maybe that means something like father and then put it away and get
another one and say, this one means mother, so that's not it either. You've
got a big group of words from the page and I just visualize the page and the
words on it. I think it begins with a P" (Spl#14). It is unclear at this point
whether this type of cognitive processing repres, ats the strategy of grouping
being aupliet or evidence that the strategy was effectively applied at an
earlier moment in time.
Note-taking: Writing down key words and concepts in abbreviatedverbal, graphic, or numerical form to assist performance of a languagetask.
6. Deduction/ Induction: Consciously applying learned or self-developedrules to produce or understand the target language.
1. Substitution: Selecting alternative approaches, revised plans, ordifferent words or phrases to accomplish a language task, as in Rus1*7,writing, "I don't know the word for lobby, so I'll use zal."
Contextualization: Placing a word or phrase in a meaningful languagesequence.
9. Elaboration: Relating new information to prior knowledge; relatingdifferent parts of new information to each other; making meaningfulpersonal associations to information presented.
Elaboration has emerged through prior research (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986;
O'Malley et al., 1986) and in the present data as an important area for
exploration, with many forms of realization. The current data show that
elaboration co-occurs with previously discrete coding categories, most
notably:
(a) Imagery (e.g., "And I was picturing in my mind Moscow University,
you know, one of the seven sisters. One of those ugly seven sisters buildings.
So I had a visual context of where Moscow State, but you see, that's not even
the same thing, really ... ", Rusl *2, while listening);
(b) Inferences (e.g., Rus1401, grammar: [looking in dictionary] "OK
Prinyat' [ ] Ah, to receive maybe, ah, to take, yeah, to take medication,
but kotorij prinyat, oh. Boris perepisivat', Boris is, I got to translate this so
I can understand what I'm saying. Boris is, urn, corresponding with these
girls who something at the medetsinskij institute, where are we? It's not
here, is it [in dictionary]? It's take or something like that, or are admitted
to, are enrolled in? Yeah, enrolled in. [Int: How did that come to you?] I,
it's the only thing. I just thought about what it could be and that's about the
only thing it could be.");
(c) Transfer (e.g., Sp3#05, while writing: "Now: If I were one of the
robbers, si estis, I guess this'd have to be preterite... in French, it'd probably
be conditional, but I don't know conditional in Spanish.");
(d) Auditory Representation (e.g., "...it was just this split second, going
back to that stage and remembering where in that setting I had ever heard
this verb", Rusl#3, during grammar activity).
Elaboration also occurs in a number of forms, among them:
(a) Personal: drawing upon prior non-academic experiences or feelings.
Frequently, this form of elaboration is emotional, e.g., WOW! or ARGH! and
can take negative forms (e.g., Rusl*7, prior to writing: "I hate writing!");
(b) World: drawing from previous academic experience (Rusl*3, writing:
"...we've been working a lot with getting tickets") or non-academic
knowledge of the world (Spl *16, filling in the blank about Juan's typical day:
" ... a typical day ... I don't know, if it's summer, you don't have to go to
school");
(c) Between Parts of a given task (e.g., Spl *15, working on the doze:
"We do something Juntas to the ... to the house, I don't know. [Int: How did
you figure that out?) Cos I looked over here and it said their mother doesn't
permit them to watch TV... I just glanced at it real quick and I just figured
they must go home at 3.");
(d) by Questioniu: realized most frequently in listening, but also in
writing and Ooze, students brainstorm possible solutions to a given language
problem (Rusl *3, listening: "I mean, if you're gonna introduce me to a
friend, what is the first thing you think to do? What's their name, where
do they live, what do they do?");
4 71 1 - 2 6
(e) Self-evaluative: discovered in analyzing writing data, students
realize that they "should" know, or passively recognize some word, phrase,
or concept in the target language and cannot use actively at the time of
working through the task (e.g., Rusl *7, writing: "See, I always get screwed
up with sem'ya, plural..."; and
(f) Creative: also discovered in analyzed writing data, and appearing
only infrequently in listening and doze, students "invent" a perspective,
pulling from their own creativity, such as the student who asks, before
beginning writing, "Can I just give him (the policeman in the picture] a
name?" and then picks the name Alberto because "it just came into my head"
(Sp3*03).
In the findings to be presented in Chapter III, the coding of elaboration by
subcategory is not always consistent, given the difficulty in teasing apart the
threads that weave together to form "prior knowledge." However, the very
fact that such categories have been identified and can be used to
differentially characterize student behaviors in working through the tasks
suggests that the subcategories are worthy of further exploration.
jQ. Summarization: Making a mental or written summary of language andinformation presented in a task.
This definition provides for behaviors where students maintain an ongoing
iteration of information received or produced in the course of a language
task. In listening, most frequently, the Russian students would verbalize
chunks of language they heard as the passage was playing, a summarization
strategy combined with monitoring for comorehensiort. In writing, both
Russian and Spanish students tended to re-read some portion of text they had
written, often in conjunction with aiming the next part. Although these
reiterations were rarely verbatim of the previously processed text, the
strategy of translation appears to be closely associated with summarization.
U. Translation: Rendering ideas from one language to another in arelatively verbatim manner.
Translation proved a very problemmatic strategy to code in the transcripts.
For one, the interviews were in English, and most of the students spoke
English as their mother tongue, so it was difficult to know with certainty
whether the student was not translating but simply choosing to speak in
English or actually translating the material he or she was working with. For
a student behavior to be coded as translation, then, he or she had to be
moving between languages "in a relatively verbatim manner." This
definition assists in distinguishing the somewhat elaborative qualities of
summarization (see above) from the act of seeking thought equivalents across
languages.
It should be noted that coding of this strategy in the Russian study often
differed from how it was coded in the Spanish study, and in many regards
reflects the way in which the two programs of study vary. Most of the
students in Russian would actively avoid translation in performing tasks,
although they would occasionally use dictionaries or request information
from the researcher to find word equivalencies across languages. Only these
instances have been coded in the Russian study as translation. The language
rendering of the Spanish students, on the other hand, appeared nearly
verbatim and so the results presented in the next chapter indicate that the
Spanish students appear to rely heavily upon translation. Most students
agreed that they did. But the translation figures reported in the tables for
the Spanish students may very well be overly inflated, given the difficulty in
41 1 -2 P
reliably and consistently distinguishing translation from summarization in
an interview being conducted in English.
Transfer: Using previously acquired linguistic knowledge to facilitate alanguage task.
This strategy was most frequently associated with cognates and/or syntactic
structures. It should be noted that most of the Russian subjects had native
or high levels of proficiency in languages other than English and Russian.
Using transfer strategies, they most frequently tap languages other than
English to assist in Russian comprehension or production. Some of the
Spanish students did this too, referring to French or Latin they had studied,
or to English, but these students, generally speaking, had not had nearly as
much exposure to other languages as the Russian subjects.
13. Inferencing: Using available information: to guess the meanings orusage of unfamiliar language items associated with a language task; topredict outcomes; or to fill in missing information.
SOCIAL AFFECTIVE STRATEGIES
L Questioning for Clarification: Asking for explanation, rephrasing,examples or verification.
Previously, the definition of this strategy was limited to queries a student
might ask about the target language. The think aloud data showed that
students also ask for clarification/verification about the Task. An additional,
exploratory category of Questioning for Clarification is Questions to the Self.
This behavior is frequently associated with self-monitoring and at present is
used merely to capture whether a student occasionally thinks in the form of
1 - 29 :3
a question. Two examples of this are: Sp3#01 (while writing, examining the
picture), "I'm thinking, is that a mailbox or construction?" and Spl#06, "El
nombre... now I'm thinking, what is nombre? Oh, name."
2. elf-talk: Reducing anxiety by using mental techniques that make onefeel competent to do that language task.
As data analysis proceed, further discoveries are being made regarding the
characteristics, variations, and parameters of how students use the above
strategies. Findings presented in Chapter III reflect unique types of learner
behaviors identified to date and, as such, should be interpreted as suggestive
of fruitful areas for further investigation of the data.
I 1 - 3 0
CHAPTER III_ RESULTS OF THE LONGITUDINAL STUDY
This chapter presents results from analyses of the data collected in the think
aloud sessions with students of Russian and of Spanish. Given the volume of
data analyzed, findings are presented in four sections, as follows:
(a) results of the Russian study, specifically: comparisons of howmore effective and less effective students used the variouslearner strategies in the Spring 86 think alouds, followed bylongitudinal comparisons of the strategy use of one moreeffective and one less effective student in Spring 86 and Spring87;
(b) results of the Spanish study, focusing upon how effective andineffective students used learner strategies in the Spring 86think alouds;
(c) longitudinal results of the Spanish study, comparing howeffective students used learner strategies in Spring 86 withtheir use the following year (Spring 87); and
(d) discussion, where the results presented in the prior threesections are examined more globally.
As described in the methodology section of this report, data in the
Longitudinal Study were collected through an innovative interviewing
technique that elicits "think aloud" protocols. All think aloud sessions were
taped and subsequently transcribed for analysis. Guiding the analyses were
the following research questions:
How do students work through various types of foreignlanguage tasks?
What are the range and variety of strategies used by studentsin performing different types of language tasks?
What differences exist, if any, in strategy usage exhibited bymore effective language learners as compared with lesseffective or ineffective language learners?
Does strategy use change over time for individual students?
A. RESULTS FROM ANALYSESOF RUSSIAN LON7ITUDINAL DATA
This section of the report presents findings from analyses of the data
collected from students of Russian in Spring 1986, their first year in the
university Russian language program, and from Spring 1987, their second
year in the Russian program.
Categories for Comparing Students
For the purposes of data analysis, subjects have been grouped as "More
Effective" (3 students), "Less Effective" (4 students), and "Ineffective" (1
student). These categories are based on the student's performance of tasks
during the think aloud interviews, with consideration given to accuracy
and sophistication in Russian, and on discussions with the students'
professors about the students' aptitude for learning Russian. It is notable
that the one subject classified as "Ineffective" in this presentation of data
analysis left the university after his first year and therefore could not be
followed longitudinally. As previously mentioned, students are counselled
out of the Russian language programs if they are judged to be ineffective
learners. The students sampled were performing at above "passing" levels
in their programs, with the majority achieving "above average" grades.
(Although Russian proficiency tests were administered with the intention of
gathering information both upon individual students' proficiency in Russian
and upon proficiency differences between the effective and less effective
students, the tests proved unuseabie within the context of this study.
Designed to measure reading proficiency on the FSI gross scale (in other
1 1 1 - 2 53
words, dealing with whole levels rather than sublevel (± scale) ratings), the
tests did not yield ratings sufficiently refined to discriminate between
learners at the beginning levels involved in this study. Moreover, the
university intensive program emphasizes oral/aural proficiency, not
reading; it i3 the non-intensive program that deals most with printed text.
As a result of these two factors, most students taking the test in Spring
1986 received a score of "0" or "1" and less effective students in the
non-intensive program tended to perform as well or better than more
effective students in the intensive program, seemingly an artifact of
instructional exposure.)
Findines from Partial Analyses of the Data Collected from Students ofRussian
This section summarizes and discusses preliminary findings from analyses
of student think aloud protocols for the Russian language grammar,
lister-1+ms, and writing tasks. For grammar and listening skills, tasks were
presented to students at two levels of difficulty. Thus, the effect of task
complexity on student use of strategies can be compared for grammar and
listening skills with reference to levels of effectiveness in language learning
and across these skill areas. For writing, the final skill area included in
the think aloud session in Spring 1986, time constraints prevented two of
the three highly effective learners from actually producing written text.
Therefore, only gross comparisons of range and variety of strategy usage
will be presented for the writing data. Longitudinal data for two students'
writing protocols will also be discussed.
Findings from Grammar Tasks. The grammar tasks presented during the
interviews asked students to produce complete, grammatically accurate
sentences from "dehydrated sentences" (strings of grammatically
unanalyzed Russian words). For example, the first such "sentence"
provided to first year Russian students was:
Viktorineplokho/govorit 'Jr usskij yazyk /no /on /mat'/khoroshohnatirusskij yazyk.
This was to be converted to:
Viktor neplokho govorit po-russki, no ego mat' khoroshoznaet russkij yazyk.
(Victor doesn't speak Russian poorly, but his mother speaksRussian well.)
The task involves recognition of various parts of speech, some familiarity
with word or phrase meaning, and a working knowledge of corresponding
grammatical structures. Each of the eight first year students worked
through two dehydrated sentences, the first, at a relatively low level of
difficulty, the second requiring more sophisticated facility in Russian.
Exhibit III-1 summarizes the variety of strategies used by students to
complete the two grammar tasks, and indicates mean frequencies of
strategy usage for more effective students versus less effective students at
the two levels of difficulty.
As shown in Exhibit II1-1, both more and less effective students use
approximately the same variety of metacognitive and cognitive strategies to
handle the two sentences. More effective students used a total of 9 unique
strategies for the less difficult and 10 unique strategies for the more
1 1 1 -
EXHIBIT I I 1-1
Spring 1986 &maw Tasks: Dehydrated SentencesMean Uwe of Strategies
More Effective Versus Less Effective First Year Students of Russian
STRATEGIES
Sentence *1( Low Level of Difficulty)
Sentence *2( Higher Level of Difficulty)
More Effec. Less Effec. More Effec. Less Effec.
METACOONITIVE
Planning .67 1.60 1.67 1.40Selective Attention .33Directed Attention .33 .20Self-Management - .33 .20Self - Monitoring 1.67 4.00 4.00 4.80
Of Comprehension .20 1.33 1.80Visual - .33Auditory .33 1.60 1.00 .40
Self-Evaluation 1.67 .60 .67 2.20
COGNITIVE
Deduction 7.00 2.20 7.33 4.60Elaboration 1.00 1.80 2.67 2.20
with I nferercing - - .67 -with Imagery .33 .20 .67 1.20with Transfer .33 .60with Auditory Rep. .33 .20
Inference .33 .40 1.33 .40Notes .33 .20 .67 .60Repetition .60 .67 2.60Resourcing - .67Transfer .20 1.67 .40Translation .67 1.20 3.00 2.40
SOCIAL AFFECTIVE
Questioning fr Clarification .33 1.40 2.67 .60
N of More Effective Students = 3N of Less Effective Students = 5
difficult sentence, while less effective students employed a total of 14 unique
strategies for the former sentence and 13 for the latter.
More interesting, perhaps, is the variation in frequency of specific strategy
usage for more and less effective learners at the two difficulty levels,
particularly with regard to: self-monitoring, deduction, translation, and
questioning for clarification.
Effective students averageed only 1.7 uses of self-monitorinR for the first
sentence, but 4.0 uses of this strategy on the second sentence. in contrast,
the less effective students monitored their performance at about the same
level for both sentences (4.0 and 4.8 average uses of self-monitorinsk,
respectively). Based on accuracy and expediency in completing the two
grammar tasks, effective students apparently did not need to self-monitor
to generate fairly grammatical solutions to the less difficult dehydrated
sentence, whereas less effective students found the first grammar problem
somewhat challenging and used self-monitoring frequently as a result.
When faced with a grammar task of greater complexity (the solution in
English would translate roughly, "Boris corresponds with these girls, who
were accepted to the medical institute"), more effective students relied more
heavily on self-monitoring. Less effective students only slightly increased
their self-monitoring behaviors in handling a task far more complex from a
teaching perspective, but only slightly more challenging from a students'
perspective. Of interest, also, is the increased monitoring of comprehension
exhibited by both more and less effective students in processing the second
grammar task. None of the more effective students monitored for
I I I - 6 5;
comprehension in the first sentence, while one of the less effective students
did. For the more complex task, more effective students averaged 1.3 uses
of monitoring for comprehension. The less effective students averaged 1.8
uses of this strategy. Again, to complete the task, students must recognize
the target meaning, in a general sense at least, in order to exercise their
metalinguistic knowledge of grammatical relationships. All students
recognized that they had to consciously attend to the intended meaning ofS
the more complex sentence to derive an acceptable grammatical solution to
the task. The more effective students' average use of translation for the
first task (0.7) versus the second task (3.0) supports this interpretation of
the self-mgpitoring findings. (The same holds true for less effective
students who averaged 1.2 uses of translation for the first task and 2.4 for
the second.)
Comparison of deduction behaviors of the two groups on the two tasks
contrasts the self - monitoring results. The more effective students used
deduction at about the same level for both the less and more complex
grammar tasks (7.0 and 7.3 uses, respectively). The less effective students
approximately doubled their usage of deduction in performing the second
task (2.2 uses for the first sentence, 4.6 for the second). It would appear
that the more effective students, while regularly tapping metalinguistic
knowledge for grammar tasks, turned to alternative strategies when faced
with a grammar challenge. Less effective students, less facile with
metalinguistic rules, tended to rely on other strategies until the use of
deduction became clearly necessary.
The third variation in strategy usage worthy of note involves questioning
for clarification. Only one of the more effective students requested
clarification in working through the less difficult grammar task, while less
effective students averaged 1.4 Questions for clarification apiece for this
task. Conversely, more effective students averaged 2.7 questions for
clarification regarding the same task -- all but one of which were posed in
discussions following their attempts to solve the grammar problem. For the
second task, only one of the five less effective students requested
explanation of the solution during the debriefing period.
Findings from Listening Tasks. As with the "grammar" think alouds,
listening tasks were presented to first year Russian students at two levels
of difficulty. The first was a relatively straightforward monologue about
foreign students attending a university program in the U.S.S.R. The second
passage involved a conversation among five speakers with relatively few
clues as to the relationships among them. Exhibit 111-2 summarizes strategy
usage by more and less effective students in processing the monologue and
conversation passages.
Somewhat surprisingly, the students used slightly fewer strategies in
processing the more difficult task (with more effective learners using 16
unique straetgles for the first and 15 unique strategies for the second
passage, and less effective learners using 18 unique strategies for the first
and 13 unique strategies for the second). This finding may be explained to
some extent by students' differential usage of prominent strategies during
the first and second listening activities. Of particular interest are uses of1 1 1 - 8 r.
./
EXHIBIT III-2
Spring 1986 Listening TasksMean Uses of Strategies
More Effective Versus Less Effective First Year Students of Russian
STRATEGIES
Listening Task *1( Low Level of Difficulty)
Listening Task *2( Higher Level of Difficul )
More Effec. Less Effec. More Effec. Less Effec.
METACOONITIVE
Planning 1.67 1.25 1.33 1.50Problem Identification 5.00 1.25 1.00 .75Selective Attention 3.33 2.25 3.00 1.75Directed Attention .67 1.00 .67 .50Self - Management .67 1.00 1.33 .75Self-Monitor 14.33 4.25 10.00 6.75
Of Inference/Hypothesis - .67 .50Of Comprehension 13.67 2.75 9.00 5.25Auditory .25 -Of Production .25"Double Check" .50Of Strategies .25
Self-Evaluation 4.33 2.75 4.33 2.25
COGNITIVE
Contextualization .50Elaboration 9.67 6.50 8.00 6.00
with Auditory Rep. 1.00 .75 .33 .25with Imagery .67 .25 .67 1.25with Inferencing 1.00 1.25 4.00 1.50by Questioning 1.67 - - .50with Transfer - - .33 .25Between Parts * * 2.67 1.50Personal * * .33 1.25
Grouping .25 -Inference .33 1.75 3.33 3.25Notes 2.67 1.00 1.33 .50Rehearsel/Review - - .67 -Repetition 2.00 1.25 .33Resourcing .33Summarization 8.00 1.00 2.00 4.00Transfer .33 1.00 - .25Translation 1.25 1.00
SOCIAL AFFECTIVE
Questioning for Clarification .33 1.75 .67 2.00Self-Talk .67 .25
N of More Effective Students a 3N of Less Effective Students = 4* Not coded for this teak
111 - 9
problem identification, self-monitoring, summarization, elaboration, and
inferencing, and the interactions of the latter four.
Problem identification appeared to be an important straetgy for more
effective students in preparing for and listening to the first passage. They
directed attention to specific areas where problems might or did occur,
averaging about five times per student. Less effective students identified
problem areas only about once each for the monologue. With regard to the
more difficult, second passage, the students specifically identified problem
areas less frequently, with the more effective students using problem
identification on an average of one time per student, and only three of the
four less effective students identifying problems. These results suggest
that, in listening, students must have skills relatively equal to the task to
pinpoint problem areas. If only moderately challenged, the student can
identify particular weaknesses in understandir. ; spoken text. If severely
challenged, the student must attend to meaning in general, rather than to
specific difficulties. The less effective students, having trouble
understanding the monologue overall, could not localize comprehension
difficulties for either the simple or difficult listening passage.
Results for self-monitoring, particularly of comprehension, and
summarization strategies for listening clearly mark differences among
more and less effective student behaviors in listening. In working through
the monologue, the more effective students used self - monitoring with over
three times the frequency of less effective learners (more effective
students: 14.3; less effective students: 4.3). On this first task, more1 1 1 - 1 0 61
effective students held a running "dialogue" with the taped passage,
(monitoring comprehension), by summarizing what they heard as they
listened, which accounts for their much more frequent uses of both
strategies, relative to less effective students. (More effective students
monitored for comprehension on an average of 13.7 times per students; less
effective students monitored for comprehension 2.8 times per student. More
effective students summarized incoming information 8 times per student;
less effective students, 1 time per student).
On the more difficult, second passage, more effective students continued to
use self-monitoring (10 uses per student), specifically monitoring of
comprehension (9 uses per student), more frequently than less effective
students (6.8 uses per student, and 5.3 uses per student, respectively),
although the contrast is less striking. It is possible that the difference in
documented uses of self-monitoring is an artifact of the data collection
technique; that is, students working with listening material pitched to their
proficiency level could monitor comprehension and verbalize their thoughts
simultaneously. With more challenging material, the students may have
continued to monitor comprehension with equal frequency, but not have
been able to verbalise their thoughts concurrently, because the act of
thinking aloud interfered with processing incoming information. This
interpretation would explain the substantial drop in the more effective
students' use of summarizing for the second listening passage (they
summarized 8 times a piece for the first listening and only 2 times each for
the second). The less effective students' increased usage of summarizing
for the second listening passage (1 time each for the first, 4 times for the111-11
C
second) actually reflects behaviors that occurred when the tape was not
playing, as these students worked through questions that accompanied the
task and retrospectively reported thoughts that had struck them while
listening. The less effective students did not maintain a "dialogue" with
either passage while listening, the way the more effective students had
with the first, more simple passage.
A third area of interest involves usage of inferencing, elaboration, and
elaboration with inferencing. The data clearly indicated that inferencing
and elaboration could not be considered entirely discrete categories. In some
instances, students integrated prior knowledge with information provided
in a task to solve problems or generate hypotheses, such that no clear
distinction between the elaboration and the inference could be drawn for
coding purposes. With this in mind, the results for elaboration and
inferencing elicit attention. First, more effective students used elaboration
overall more frequently than less effective students for both listening
passages (more effective: first task--9.7 uses each, second task-8.0 uses
each; less effective: first task--6.5 uses each, second task-6.0 uses each).
But the specific type of elaboration used by effective students changed
notably from the first to the second passage. For the monologue, more
effective student combined elaboration with inferencing only one time each
(on the average). For the conversation passage, more effective students
combined these strategies an average of 4 times each. In contrast, less
effective students combined elaboration and inferencing at about equal
levels for both listening passages (1.25 average uses for the first passage and
1.5 average uses for the second).1 1 1 - 1 2
63
Furthermore, both more and less effective learners markedly increased
their use of inferencirA, in its more pure sense, for the more difficult
passage (more effeCtive: first passage--0.3 times each, second passage--3.3
times each; less effective: first passage--1.8 times each, second passage--3.3
times each), and, as indicated, both groups increased the use of this
strategy to about the same level for the second passage. Obviously, the
more difficult second passage required students to infer meaning more
extensively. It is notable, however, that the more effective students not
only increased their use of simple inferencing for the second passage, they
also combined their prior knowledge (elaboration) with task-available
information (inferencing) in order to process the more difficult task,
suggesting that more effective students have acquired greater sophistication
in strategy application than their less effective peers.
Findings from Comvaring Grammar and Listening Tasks. Exhibit 111-3
compares aggregate results for metacognitive, cognitive, and social/affective
strategy use for grammar and listening tasks at two levels of difficulty.
Exhibit 111-3 further compares the minimum and maximum incidences of
strategy use for more and less effective learners on the tasks and mean
numbers of strategy uses for these groups.
Exhibit 111-3 offers a number of interesting contrasts. First, regarding the
variety of strategy use, all types of students used metacognitive strategies
for all types of tasks reported, but the same does not hold true for cognitive
strategies. One less effective student used no cognitive strategies for the
less difficult grammar task, and, similarly, the minimum and maximum
I 1 1 - 1 3
EXHIBIT 111 -3
Summary of Strategy Usage for Dreamer and Listening Tasksof Varying Levels of Difficulty:
More Effective Versus Less Effective First Year Students of Russian
STRATEGIES
Grammar Task 4t1( Low Level of Difficulty)
Grammar Task *2( Higher Level of Difficulty)
More Effective Less Effective More Effective Less EffectiveRange I Mean Range Mean Range I Mean Range I Mean
METACOONITIVE 3- 6 4.33 4-10 6.40 5-15 9.00 6-14 9.20
COGNITIVE 7-12 9.33 0-10 6.40 9-24 17.67 6-17 13.20
SOCIAL AFFECTIVE 0- 1 .33 0- 3 1.40 1-4 2.67 0-2 .60
N of More Effective Students = 3N of Lees Effective Students - 5
STRATEGIES
Listening Task s1( Low Level of Difficulty)
Listening Task s2(Hider Level of Difficulty)
More Effective Less Effective More Effective Less EffectiveRange I Mean Range (Mean Range roan Range 1Meen
METACOGNITIVE 19-36 25.00 6-17 13.00 17-30 21.67 8-22 14.50
COGNITIVE 22-40 28.00 9-26 19.50 14-22 17.00 5-19 14.25
SOCIAL AFFECTIVE 0- 1 .33 1- 5 2.00 0-02 0.67 1- 3 2.00
N of More Effective Students a 3N of Less Effective Students - 4
65
number of strategy uses for less effective students are consistently lower
than for more effective students.
Secondly, task difficulty and task type clearly influence mean strategy use
for more and less effective groups. Students use strategies more often for
listening than for grammar tasks--an intuitively acceptable finding,
considering the integrative nature of listening tasks as opposed to the
discrete nature of grammar tasks. What is striking, however, is the
degree to which more effective students increase use of strategies as
compared to less effective students. For instance, more effective learners
increase their mean uses of metacognitive strategies more than six-fold,
comparing their performance on the less difficult grammar task (4.3) and
listening task (25.0), while less effective students only double their use of
metacognitive strategies across the two less difficult tasks (6.4 for
grammar, 13.0 for listening). It is surprising, however, that these
increases are present for cognitive strategies when comparing grammar
and listening tasks of a lower difficulty level, but not for those of greater
difficulty levels. In fact, while more effective students used more cognitive
strategies than less effective students on both the more difficult grammar
and listening tasks, the mean group usages of cognitive strategies remained
fairly consistent for both the more difficult grammar and listening tasks
(more effective: grammar--17.7, listening--17.0; less effective:
grammar--13.2, listening--14.3). Furthermore, looking within skill areas,
both groups increased cognitive strategy use for the more difficult grammar
task; but they both decreased cognitive strategy use for the more difficult
listening task (more effective: grammar*1--9.3, grammar *2-17.7,
listening *1-28.0, listening *2-17.0; less effective: grammar *1-6.4,
grammar #2- -13.2, listening *1--19.5, listening *2-14.3).
These findings clearly suggest that the interaction of the skill area tapped
by the task and the level of task difficulty influences strategy usage. For
tasks associated with discrete aspects of language learning (e.g., grammar
tasks), both more and less effective students cope with the challenge by
drawing more heavily upon strategies. For integrative language tasks, like
listening, first year students may not have a sufficient repertoire of
alternative strategies or, perhaps, sufficient sophistication in strategy
usage, to bring greater levels of strategy use to bear on tasks above their
proficiency level. Longitudinal comparisons of student behaviors on discrete
and integrative language tasks may shed further insight into the
interaction of tasks with strategy behavior.
Findings from Writing Tasks. As mentioned previously, the writing task
included in the interviews produced large non-comparable data across
students--in part because in the first series of interviews, the writing task
was the last to be presented, so time constraints prevented some students
from fully engaging in the task, and in part because students reacted
radically differently to the task. The first interviews provided (1)
pre-planning data for three more effective and four less effective students;
and (2) planning/writing data for one ineffective, four less effective, and
three more effective students, although two only planned what they would
write, never producing written text. Longitudinal data for one more
effective and one less effective student over a one-year period were also
Ili -16 6
available. Therefore, analyses of the data generated by the writing stimuli
will be treated in three ways. First, results from the first interviews will
be presented focusing on the variety of strategies used by the various
groups of students in the pre-planning and planning/writing phases of
writing. Second, extracting from the data provided from the first
interview, strategy applications of one more effective, one less effective,
and one ineffective student will be compared. Thirdly, longitudinal writing
data for one more ffective and one less effective student will be presented.
Exhibit summarizes the variety of strategies used by more and less
effective students prior to selecting a composition topic. Notable in this
table is the limited repertoire of strategies used by students in pre-planning
phases of writing. Three metacognitive strategies, one cognitive strategy,
and one social affective strategy are employed by at least one member each
of the more and less effective learner groups. Furthermore, all students
employed elaboration in approaching the task of writing, with one student
from the less and one from the more effective group using this strategy
rather extensively, in comparison to level of usage of any other strategy
(the highest level of usage of any metacognitive or social affective strategy
was one incidence; the highest level of usage of elaboration for both more
and less effective students was eight incidences). Clearly, elaboration plays
an important role in planning to write and may, in fact, have
metacognitive attributes, as a strategy. Hence, the practice of recognizing
metacognitive and cognitive strategies as discrete categories may not
accurately represent task processing behaviors.
1 1 - 176
EXHIBIT III -4A
Summery of Strategy Usage for Writing Task:Comparison of More Effective, Less Effective, and Ineffective
First Year Students of Russian
PRE-PLANNINGSTRATEGIES
More EffectiveN-3
Less EffectiveN=4
N of StudentsUsing Strategy
Highest*Level ofUsage
N of Students
Using StrategyHighest*Level ofUsage
METACOGNITIVE
Self-Management 1
Self-Monitor 1 1 1
Evaluation 1 1 1 1
COGNITIVE
Elaboration 3 8 4 8Between Parts 2 1 1 1
Personal 2 6 3 3Personal Emotive 1 1
Self-Evaluative 1 1 3 5On Strategies - 1 1
Academic 1 1 1 2
SOCIAL AFFECTIVE
Questioning for Clarification 1 1 2 1
Maximum number of incidences of a single student's use of the strategy
Similarly, Exhibit III-4B shows that more effective, less effective, and
ineffective students all use essentially the same repertoire of strategies for
writing. They use metacognitive strategies to plan, monitor, and evaluate
their performance; they use the cognitive strategies of deduction,
elaboration, repetition, resourcing, and substitution at fairly comparable
levels. (The more effective students' use of repetition involved, for the
most part, one student's concern over the spelling of one troublesome
word.) In addition, more, less, and in-effective students all questioned for
clarification. Variations in usage levels of other strategies reported appear
to be highly idiosyncratic, or a matter of personal writing style. Exhibit
111-5 presents data that may elucidate contrasts between levels of
effectiveness and personal style in investigating strategy usage.
As shown in Exhibit 111-5, contrasts between the more, less, and in-effective
students, for the most part, reflect only differences in writing style. Only
two contrasts emerge that suggest differential use of strategies according to
degree of effectiveness that cannot be otherwise explained in the raw data.
First, while the more, less, and in-effective students all monitor their
writing, they attend to their performance at different levels. The more
effective student 11rects 8 of his 19 uses of self-monitoring to the discourse
level (7 times towards gylg and once to his plan). In contrast, the less and
in-effective students direct an overwhelming majority of their US2S of
self-monitoring to the word, level (16 of 21 for the less effective student, and
18 of 23 for the ineffective student). The more effective student, then,
appears to have sufficient control over Russian language production to
attend to his style in writing, more so that the less effective students, who
1 1 1 - 19 70
EXHIBIT I11 -4B
Writing Strategies Summary (Continued)
PLANNING/WRITING
STRATEGIES
More EffectiveN=3*
Less EffectiveN=4
IneffectiveN=1
N of StudentsUsing Strategy
Highest**Level ofUsage
N of StudentsUsing Strategy
Highest**Level ofUsage
Level ofUsage
METACOGNITIVE
Planning 3 8To Compose 1 1
Discourse Level 2 3--To Do 1 2--To Say 2 2Sentence Level 3 8
Directed AttentionSelective Attention 1 2Sa lf-Management 2 2Self-Monitor 2 21
Word Level 2 8Phrase LevelSentence Level 1 1
PunctuationAuditory 1 1
for Styleof Strategiesof Plan
2
1
7
1
"Double Check" 1 3Self-Evaluation 1 2
COGNITIVE
Deduction 2 2Elaboration 3 14
Personal 3 4--Personal-Emotive 1 1
Academic 2 8Self-Evaluative 2 2Between Parts -with Transfer -with Imagery
GroupingNotes 1 3Repetition 1 12Resourcing 2 2Substitution 1 1
Summarization 1 6Translation - -
Transfer
SOCIAL AFFECTIVE
Questioning for Clarification 2 1
Self-Talk
4 11
1 24 41 1
4 44 10 11
1 1
4 3 1
4 21 264 18 201 1 1
1 5 1
1 1
3 6 93 2 22 1
2 2
4 6 6
121
4 13 124 17 11
4 5 21 1 -4 4 34 6 52 4 -1 1 1
1 1
1 2- 52 2 41 1 43 3 33 10 101 2 5
4
7 1 2 5 41 1
* Two Highly Effective students spent all ofths task time plenning.** Maximum number of incidences of a single student's use of the strategy 1 1 I - 2 0
EXHIBIT III-5
Spr 86 Planning and Writing Data for Selected Students
I LEVEL OF EFFECTIVENESS HIGH MEDIUM LOW
STUDENT ID Spr 86 *1 Spr 86 *4 Spr 86 08
METACOONITIVE STRATEGIES
Planning 8 9 12
--To Compose (Strategies) 2--Discourse Level (To Say) 3--Sentence Level (To Say) 8 4 11
Self-Management 1 1
Self- Monitor 19 21 23--Discourse Level (Style) 7 2 2
--Sentence Level 1 1
--Word Level 8 16 18
--Punctuation 1
--Auditory 1 4 7
--Plan 1 2--Double Check 1
Self-Evaluation 5 5
COONTIVE STRATEGIES
Deduction 2 11 9Elaboration 5 12 10
--Personal 3 4 2-- -Personal-Emotive 1 1
--Academic 2 3 2--Self-Evaluative 2 5--Between Parts 3--On a Linguistic Transfer 1
Notes 5Repetition 12
Resourcing 1 - 4Substitution 1 3 3Summarization 6 10 8--Translation 3Transfer - 2
SOCIAL/AFFECTIVE STRATEGIES
must concentrate on accuracy in second language production. The second
contrast confirms, to some extent, this interpretation. The more effective
student uses deduction only twice in the course of planning and writing his
composition, while the less and in-effective students use deduction eleven
and nine times, respectively.
Longitudinal Results: Spring 1986 and 1987 Writing
The final analysis, summarized in Exhibit 111-6, presents longitudinal results
for strategy use for one more and one less effective learner. Exhibit 111-6
shows that both students remain fairly consistent in their use of strategies
across the first and third interview sessions (Spring 1986 at the end of one
year of Russian study at the university, and Spring 1987 at the end of two
years of Russian study at the university). The strategies that both
students used most often in Srping 1986, namely, planning and elaboration,
appear with relatively equal frequency in the Spring 1987 data. In fact, the
more effective learner uses exactly the same number of elaborations in
both observations.
An interesting difference over the year period for the less effective student
is apparent. She greatly increases her usage of strategies for writing from
one year to the next. The less effective student, who had been ranked as
fairly effective in Spring 1986 but decided to repeat first year intensive
Russian in Spring 1987, increased her use of jamming by slightly more than
50 percent, her use of self- monitoring by more than 50 percent, her use of
elaboration by about 50 percent, her use of deduction eight-fold, and her use
of auestioning for clarification six-fold in the Spring 1987 observation. What
1.1 1 -22 73
EXHIBIT 111 -6Sommoory of Strategy Usage for Writing Task:
Comparison of Spring 1986 and Spring 1987 Data for Two Students
rStudent
TRATEGIES
3 Student 786 87 86 87
METACOGNITIVECOGNITIVE
SOCIAL AFFECTIVE
11
261
1629
2
23153
40
4413
METACOGNITIVE
Planning 6 9 8 13To Compose 1 - 2Discourse Level 3 7 4 4To Do 2 4 1 4"To Say 1 3 3 3Sentence Level 3 1 4 7
Directed Attention - 2Self-Management 1 3 3 2Self-Monitor 2 2 9 24
Word Level 1 1 2 17Sentence Level - 5 1
Punctuation 1
Auditory - 4 1
for Style 1 1
of Strategies 1
of Plan 2 5'Double Check' 1
Self-Evaluation 2 3 1
COGNITIVE
Deduction 2 1 8Elaboration 22 22 10 26
Personal 10 8 2 6-- Personal - Emotive - 2Academic 8 4 4 10Self-Evaluative 2 1 5 2Questioning 2Between Parts 1 1 -with Transfer - 2with imagery 2 2with Informing - 2about Strategies 4 1
Grouping 1
Repetition 1 1
Resourcing 2 6 1 2Substitution - 1 1 1
Surnnurization 1 4Translation - 1
SOCIAL AFFECTIVE
Questioning for Clerifkation 1 2 .2 13for Verification - 2about the Task 1 2 1 2
Self-Talk - ,..i -.; 1
makes these contrasts particularly interesting is that the more effective
student flatly refused to produce written text throughout the three
observation periods, while the less effective student produced only two
sentences in Spring 1986, then rather extensive text (four complex sentences)
in Spring 1987. The less effective student's approach to the task had
entirely changed in that, in Spring 1986, she could not get started. She
spent the majority of the time appropriated for the writing task trying to
generate an opening sentence. In the second year, this student disregarded
concern for style and began writing almost spontaneously. Her confidence
in writing had increased substantially.
The writing data, then, offer suggestive rather than conclusive findings.
Consistently, self-monitoring and elaboration appear to be strategies
necessary for writing. The levels of monitoring and styles or types of
elaboration appear to be aspects of strategy usage worthy of further
investigation. Also, the uses of summarization in conjunction with
invention (or text generating techniques) elicit interest, as students at all
levels of effectiveness use the strategy frequently. Further exploration of
both cross-sectional data for students at various levels of proficiency and
longitudinal data may offer more insights into patterns of strategy usage
for writing.
Summary Djscussion of Russian Data.
The data analysis in process indicates that strategy use can discriminate
among better and weaker language learners for, at least, grammar and
listening activities. Furthermore, the data show that the nature of tasks
111-24
(in terms of difficulty and type) influence the strategic behaviors evidenced
in student think aloud protocols. The analyses presented above respond to
greater and lesser degrees to the research questions posed:
How do students work through various types of foreignlanguage tasks?
Through these data analyses, some understanding of strategies relevant to
various types of skill areas have been identified. For grammar tasks,
self-monitoring and deduction seem to play important roles. For listening,
self monitoring, problem identification, elaboration, inferencir g, and
summarization appear as prominent aides to successful task completion.
For writing, elaboration, self-monitoring, and summarization appear to
figure influentially into students' approach and processing of the task.
Further investigation of the uses of these strategies and combinations of
these strategies should be undertaken in analyzing the remaining data.
What are the range and variety of strategies used bystudents in performing different types of language tasks?
As discussed above, the type of task substantially influences strategy usage.
These differences lie not so much in the category of strategy used, but in
how the strategy is applied to the task. For instance, in listening
self-monitoring for comprehension played a role that discriminated between
more and less effective students. In writing, self - monitoring fpr style at
the discourse level distinguished between more and less effective students.
While simple counts of specific strategy use may offer some insight into
learner behaviors, it appears that analyses from a qualitative perspective
I I I - 25 7
may more completely reveal strategic behaviors that characterize more
effective as opposed to less effectivce language learners.
What differences exist, if any, in strategy usage exhibitedby effective learners as compared with less effectivelearners?
Apparent throughout the analyses were differences that contrasted strategy
usage by more and less effective language learners. The differences,
however, were not necessarily in what strategies were used, but how
those strategies were applied-- the level, the manner, the interaction with
other strategies. With sensitivity to task demands, further analysis of
additional data may offer avenues for translating good learner strategies
into teachable learning skills.
Does strategy usage change over time for individual students?
While longitudinal data presented addressed only writing skills, and only
with reference to two students, the results suggest that the more effective
student did not radically alter patterns of strategy usage over time, but
that the less effective student did. These data are insufficient to draw any
stable conclusions, but offer ample grounds for further investigation.
The subjects studied in the Russian as a Foreign Language component of this
project should be recognized as relatively effective learners, in general.
They were admitted to a competitive university and enrolled in and
survived two semesters of study in a language perceived to be challenging.
It is not surprising, therefore, that even the least effective learner brings a
I I I - 26 77
broad range of strategies to Russian language tasks. Nonetheless, the more
effective, or more talented language learners in this group appear to use
strategies with greater efficiency and sophistication. When, how, and
where the more effective language learners use strategic behaviors in
processing language tasks should be investigated further in future data
analyses of the longitudinal data and of cross-sectional data for students of
higher levels of study.
1 1 -27
B. RESULTS OF THE SPANISH THINE ALOUD DATA:Sprig 1986
Results of think aloud data collected from students of Spanish 1, 3, and 5 are
presented.in this section of the report. Differences between strategy use of
effective and ineffective language learners at each of these levels are
examined using the data collected in Spring 1986, the first semester of the
longitudinal study. (Analysis of how student strategy use changed over time
is presented in the next section of this chapter.)
Before presenting comparisons between effective and ineffective students,
several points need to be made regarding the relativity of learner
effectiveness and about the criteria used to select think aloud transcripts for
inclusion in data analysis.
Effectiveness of Students
As described in the methodology section of this report, students were
Identified by their classroom teacher as being either effective or ineffective
language learners. Generally speaking, categorizing the students in this way
held more validity for the Spanish sample than for the Russian sample (see
previous section) because the Spanish students were enrolled in a high school
system that requires them to study a foreign language (as opposed to self-
selecting foreign language study). Differences in the two effectiveness groups
were most apparent in Spanish 1 students. Effective students at this level
generally showed enthusiasm for studying Spanish and engaged themselves in
the think aloud activities. In contrast, most students deemed ineffective
declared that they hated Spanish and did not know anything about the
1 ,1-2P Kf
language. As Exhibit 111-7 shows, large differences also existed between the
two effective groups in terms of proficiency in Spanish (an average testing
score of 55.6 for effective students, versus 33.5 for the ineffectives).
As self-selected study became more of an option (as with the Spanish 3 and 5
students), the dichotomy between effectiveness and ineffectiveness was not so
marked. Students in both categories engaged themselves in the think aloud
sessions and demonstrated at least a basic interest in the language. These
latter observations mirror findings of the Russian sample, where
effectiveness proved a relative term; at these advanced levels, even
ineffective students have learned a fair amount of the language and have
persisted in their study beyond what is required. Results of the proficiency
testing show that differences do exist between the proficiency of effective and
ineffective students at the more advanced levels of study, but these
differences are not so extreme as at the beginning level.
It is interesting to note that, consistent with the Russian students, within
each effectiveness category relative degrees of effectiveness and
ineffectiveness were apparent. For example, two types of ineffectiveness
were noted among the Spanish 1 students. The first type of ineffective
student can be described as hating studying the language; this student has
internalized so little of "the basics" that to read or write even the simplest
sentence in Spanish is an onerous task. The second type of ineffective
student does not dislike studying the language per se but shoals evidence of
additional learning difficulties, such as problems in reading or in
remembering information Just presented.
0I I I -29',
VOMIT I I I - 7Mean and Standard Deviation of Effective and Ineffective Spanish Students
on the Spanish Proficiency Test(Spring 1986, Form A)
Language DataGroup Type
Test Subpart
Reading Cloze Listening Dictation TOT AL
Tests Items PossibleTest, Levels 1-3 15.0 17.0 10.0 15.0 39.0 96.0Test, Levels 3-5 16.0 16.0 13.0 15.0 40.0 100.0
Spanish 1: Test 1-3*Effectives Mean 6.3 8.0 4.0 5.8 31.4 55.6
SD 1.7 2.9 2.5 1.8 4.7 8.6
lneffectives Mean 5.1 4.1 0.4 4.0 19.9 33.5SD 12 1.1 0.6 1.1 4.1 5.3
Swish 3: Test 3-5*Effectives Mean 5.75 9.6 5.8 5.5 31.8 57.5
SD 1.4 2.2 1.6 0.9 3.3 3.4
Ineffectives Mean 5.3 7.5 3.2 4.7 24.3 44.5SD 0.4 2.7 0.5 1.3 4.1 1.4
Spanish 5: Test 3-5*Effectives Mean 10.0 15.0 10.8 14.0 38.8 88.5
SD 0.7 12 1.4 1.0 0.4 1.6
Ineffectives Mean 7.5 13.0 7.8 8.5 37.0 73.8SD 0.5 3.0 2.3 1.5 2.0 5.3
Problems during testing resulted in some students not completing all test subparts. In Spanish 1, forexample, one ineffective student could not complete the dictation due to a broken arm. Four studentsin Spanish 3, for reascfs unknown, failed to complete the last 3 sections of the test. Therefore, thenumber of students whose testing data was used in the above oaloulations varied as follows:
Language
GroupNumber of Students
Clore Listening Dictation TOTAL
Suojahl.Effectives 12 12 12 12 12 12lneffeotives
likeilia
8 8 8 9 7 9**
Effectives 8 8 4 4 4 4Meffeotives 4 4 3 3 3 3
IliardillEffectives 4 4 4 4 4 4Ineffeetives 2 2 2 2 2 2
**One ineffective student could not complete the dictation 'Mist. His TOTAL score was calculated by
Wiwi the statistical average of ineffective students' dieteticn perfamenee to his scores on theother subparts of the test.
111-30 s BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Similarly, differences were noted in the degree or effectiveness among
effective students. Most demonstrated solid study skills, good attention
spans, and interest in performing the various language tasks given them.
These students might be considered the "typical effectives." Several,
however, attacked the tasks with unwavering concentration and
determination and showed remarkable flair and intuition in completing each
one; these students might be considered the "exceptional effectives."
Thus, even within the categories of effective and ineffective, students showed
variation in abiliW. These differences are important to note most
particularly for the ineffective students, where teachers should be aware
that lack of motivation may not be the sole cause of ineffectiveness but,
rather, poor study skills or other learning problems. As far as both the
"exceptional" and more typically effective students are concerned, much can
be learned from their various styles and approaches to language learning, as
will be seen below.
Criteria for Selection of Data to be Analyzed
As was mentioned in the previous section, certain limitations exist in the
data collection technique of "think aloud." For one, certain strategies (i.e.,
peer cooperation) are not elicited in a one-on-one interview situation, so little
can be said aboul effective and ineffective student behavior in this regard.
A more important limitation, however, is that the quality of the data
collected is directly related to the quality of the student's think aloud. Some
students, despite training, were not good at using the technique, probably due
to their quiet natures. Others were capable of producing a good think aloud
but, at the particular moment of data collection, were distracted, tired, or
S' 9I I I -31 '
nervous. In other instances, the thinK aloud session was poor due to
inadequate questioning by the interviewer or because technical problems
arose, such as a bad recording or an unplanned interruption (i.e., fire drill).
Thus, judgements had to be made about the adequacy of each student's think
aloud before including it in data analysis. If the data coder found that the
transcript of the session showed too many gaps in think aloud, then the
student's data were not included in the analysis reported here.
Exhibit III-8 shows the number of student think alouds included in each
analysis. As can be seen, these numbers vary from activity to activity. In
some cases the variance is due, not to inadequate think alouds, but to the
fact that students never got to the activity. This tends to be true in the case
of the Year 1 ineffective students, who spent so much time performing the
first three activities that time ran out before they got to the last two. The
figures presented in the tables throughout this section (and in the appendices)
have been adjusted to account for the varying numbers of students involved.
For example, if the seven (7) effective Spanish 3 students used a total of 25
selective attentions in listening, the figure entered in the table would be 25/7,
or 3.6. This number, then, represents the average number of times an
effective student selectively attended during a listening passage.
Sj2anish 1 Results: Soring 1986
Think aloud sessions with Spanish 1 students produced some interesting and
unexpected results. Two activities (vocabulary and writing) were analyzed
for incidence of learner strategies used by effective and ineffective students;
results indicate that the ineffective students tended to use more strategies
than the effectives. Exhibit 111-9 lists those strategies where fairly large
I I I - 3 2
EXHIBIT I I I 8
Number of Effective and Ineffective Spanish StudentsWhose Data Were Analyzed,
by Spring 1986 Think Aloud Activity
Language
Level Activity-- Number of Students Included in Analysis
Effective Ineffective Total
Spanish 1 Vocabulary 13 6 19
Writing 9 5 14
Cloze 10 10
Spanish 3 Listening 7 4 11
Writing 7 3 10
Cloze 7 4 11
Spanish 5 Writing 2 1 3
Cloze 2 2 4
OMIT ill - 9
Strategies Showing a Difference in Usage forEffective and ineffective Spanish 1 Students
(Spring 1906, Think Aloud Session 1)
Activity StrategyFrequency of Usage
Effective IneffectiveN It N X
Vocabulary Subtotal. MetacognitivePlanning Strategies 0.1 1.9 0.8 14.7
Self- evaluation 0.3 7.7 1.8 32.4
Total, Metecognitive 4.0 100.0 5.7 100.0
Resourcing 0.5 4.0 2.0 11.5
Total, Cognitive 13.6 100.0 17.3 100.0
Question for Clarification 3.0 100.0 5.3 100.0
Total, An Strategies 20.6 28.3
Writing Organizational Planning 4.6 39.4 7.0 42.7
Subtotal. MetacognItivePlanning Strategies 5.7 47.2 7.6 46.3
Self-monitoring 42 352 62 37.8
Total, tietacognitiva 12.0 100.0 16.4 100.0
Ramming 0.1 1.0 1.8 12.0
Translation 3.4 27.4 6.0 40.0
Deduction 12 9.7 0.4 2.7
kno PrY 0.6 4.4 0.0 --Total. Cognitive 12.6 100.0 15.0 100.0
(bastions for Clarification 4.3 100.0 6.6 100.0
Total, AU Strategies 28.9 33.0
1 t t 34 BEST COPY AVAILABLE
differences appeared in the frequency of use between the two student groups
(Appendix B presents tables showing frequency of all strategy occurrence for
these two activities).
Vocabulary Fill-in-the-Blank: The Family Tree. The vocabulary task
consisted of five sentences, each containing at least one blank space needing a
word relating to the family. A drawing of a family tree provided visual
information about relationships (see Appendix C). The students were asked to
read the sentences and find a word to put in each blank. In examining the
vocabulary think alouds, the reason for the ineffective's greater use ofstrategies becomes clear. The effective students had far less difficulty in
filling in the blanks with an appropriate word. In contrast, the ineffectives
took quite a bit of time figuring out what each sentence meant, using either
the dictionary (resourcing), asking the interviewer for help (auestioninz for
clarification) or simply stalling in place. Their self-evaluations were likely
to be negative, as in the example presented below. The student is working on
the sentence "Mi es Gonzalez" ("My _(last name)._ is
Gonzalez").
St: My parents, they're Gonzalez. I don't know the word forparents.
Int: Can you think of another word?St: My folks, I don't know.
Int:Do you have words coming into your mind or is it justblank?
St Well, I remember where I should have learned it, but Idon't remember it. I mean ... El nombre (going on to thenext sentence)
hit: What are you thinking?St: Trying to figure out what nombre means.Int: What are you thinking about it?
St: I don't know. Trying to figure out what nombre is and Idon't remember. (Spi#05)
15` tr;3 5
Vie student generates the word "parents" as a possible answer without
realizing that the blank calls for a singular word. He knows where he
should have learned the word he thinks he needs, but does not remember it
and subsequently moves on to the next sentence. There he encounters the
word "nombre" (name) which he does not know and, without reading the
rest of the sentence for a clue, he stalls in place. This type of approach was
typical of the ineffective student.
The effective student, on the other hand, was generally efficient in finding an
appropriate word to go in the blank.
St: Mi blank es Gonzalez. Urn... nombre, I'm thinking.(writes in "nombre")
Int: Okay.St: El nombre de mi blank es Susana Gonzalez. Susana is at
the top of that thing (the family tree in their workbook)so she must be my grandmother and that's abuela.(writes in "abuela") (W*03)
Thus, the greater number of strategies used by the ineffective students may
be due to their more "muddled" approach to finding the correct vocabulary
word. The effectives had a better grasp of family vocabulary and had less
need to employ strategies to generate an answer. This finding mirrors
results of the Russian study and indicates that task difficulty is an
important variable in determining strategy use. If the task is too simple,
strategy use is unnecessary. On the other end of the spectrum, if the task is.-----"'"-"N
too difficult, then use of strategies may be unhelpfor-irnpossible.
Writing about the Family Tree. The results of the writing activity also
show the ineffective students using more strategies than the effectives. The
task given students was to write a short paragraph about the family tree
used in the vocabulary exercise, pretending that they were a member of the
I I 1 - 3 6 87
family. As Exhibit Hi-, incticates, the ineffective students planned more (7.0
times in the exercise, as contrasted with the effective students' average
planning of 4.6 times), mwitored more (6.2 times, compared with theeffectives' monitoring of 4.2), and questioned more (6.6, compared with 4.3).
However, these numbers do not indicate how, the students monitored or
planned or questioned, and are in fact misleading as to the performance of
effective and ineffective students. The ineffectives tended to compose at a
much lower level, often moving word by word, as in the example presented
at the top of Exhibit III-10. To begin with, the student has misunderstood
what he is supposed to do. He believes he is supposed to write about his own
family, although the interviewer has explained the task and the studentworkbook where he is writing contains clear instructions. He has a,ready
written three short sentences, all using the same structure of "My is
", a discourse jam he made at the start of the activity. At the
point where the excerpt begins, the ineffective student is stymied because he
doesn't "have much of a family" and cannot think of what to write next.He stumbles into writing about his uncle because the word "tio" occurs to
him while he is trying to think of the word for "cousin." Having arrived at
this general plan (line 7), he generates a sentence level plan, (line 9) by
producing the word "funny" to put into the second blank of his modelsentence. But he cannot think of how to say funny in Spanish, so he
substitutes "smart" (line 10), only to realize that he has already used thisword (self-monitorine for style). He tries to think of other words he might
know, but can not because "I don't know any words." This self-evaluation
leads his thoughts to the wild weekend he claims he had (line 16), a personal
elaboration that is irrelevant and distracting to the task.
1 I 1 - 3 7
S S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
EXHIBIT I 1 1 - 1 0Excerpts from Writing Think Mouds
of Ineffective and Effective Spanish 1 Students
Ineffective Stamina Vita Result: Mi does feo.
Int: (on student's rapping of pencil on desk) What are you thinking?/0,/
St: i I don't have much of a family. Oh wait, no.
Int:
St:
Int:
Int:
St.:
int:
Whet?
I daft know 1 dont have anything else to writs bout.
Make something to. You're Pedro here. you can say anything you want.
Ahe-intmn.erviewsr ) Tin?
Whet. are you thinking?
Nothing. I'm just thinking
(tHe's smart, but I already
as you thinking?
St: 's cousin
the
6-) CI kio Cipe.ted,c,A4-0
1a- cauat)QeDiCtod
(W)
(referring to prior aching* between himself and
, 111 write about my
whet to writs about.
wrote that.
uncle. Mt do es... lets
(lies fumy. he's fumy
St: Nothing much. I'm just trying to think of anything else he is that 1 might know.
Int: ti you running through words?
St.: (No. cos I don't know any words.
Int: Just waiting for one to pop in?
St.: Yeah. (pauselivhed a roily wild weekend.
16-/Ara,1) 047 Crisavust)
Effective Steiset (1'01): Result: MI tla Pllar Lbpez es muy moll.
1 7 St: (reeds instructions stood without prompting) Okay411 start with her.,.aunt,
1 8 Pllar Gonzalez. Rift now IM thinking, IM looking at this *tire andlshe seems
19 very evil. so...111 writs...(rri U. my aunt. Nor Lopez...es rmy...muy...
2 0 Int: What's happening here?
2.1 St: (Mucha, okay, wait. Ito thinking. OW. we
2 2 and web* any mioul is close as 1 an to it,
2 3 I Ir aw it 1111111111very. Okay. so muy
2 4 right IOW rIll jug thinking this bock in
2 5 became she heart told us the translation...
2 6 Of evil, you mean?
2 7 Yeah. evil.
2 8 Good. New, you hesitstad a bit on troy.
2 9 Became I was thinking of muchsche too.
30 !Ow did you discard mudiedio?
31 Mucha. 1 moon. Cos it says 'a tor and 1 wanted to say -v.v'
A,
to remember the Ochre
I can remember how to Well it out.
I remember to Wilkie this. so
aunt Mr t is bad.
Int:
St:
int:
St:
kit:
St:
8 ZEST COPY AVAILABLE
In contrast to the ineffective student's belabored effort, the excerpt of the
effective student shows a purposeful, efficient construction of a sentence.
The student makes her plan (line 17-19), moving as did the ineffective from
the general to the specific, but using the family tree picture to fuel her
thoughts. The aunt in the picture looks evil, but the student has not yet
learned to say evil, so she purposefully substitutes the word "mala" (bad).
While both of these students use substitution to avoid a problem area, the
effective does so in Spanish, not in English, and sticks to the semantic
message she wishes to communicate. Similarly, her self-monitoring focuses
on her use of Spanish (lines 23-24 ai:d 31), while the self-monitoring done by
the ineffective student relates to his English construction of the paragraph.
Overall, there appears to be a difference in these students' goals; the
ineffective student is most concerned with getting through the task, while
the effective student is focused upon communicating a certain message.
Thus, the information that numbers provide about the way in which
effective and ineffective students use learner strategies can be misleading.
Number-counting does not reveal whether a strategy application is 5tratetic,
helping the student to accomplish the task at hand, or whether the student
has wandered aimlessly into "rising the strategy, as in the case of the
ineffective student who was Just waiting for a word to pop into his mind so
that he could complete his sentence. Therefore, although quantitative results
will be presented through this report for the various student activities and
levels, these will always be linked to qualitative examples of how students
work with the language.
j1 1 - 3-9
Reading and Grammar Cloze. The last activity in the Spanish 1 workbook
was a reading and grammar doze activity called "A Typical Day for Juan
and his sister Rosa" (see Appendix C). Comparisons of how effective and
ineffective students performed on this activity were not made because only
two ineffective students managed to progress through the activities to this
point. Ten effective students completed the activity, and their performance
constitutes the basis for the analysis.
The reading/grammar activity consisted of a short story about Juan and
emphasized vocabulary describing a typical day, such as to get up, to wash,
to eat, to go to school. The students' task was to fill in the blanks with
either a noun or the appropriate conjugation of the verb provided for them in
parentheses. Appendix B presents a complete listing of the frequency of all
strategies used by effective students to do this, but the strategies used most
frequently were:
Metacognitive: Cognitive:
Self-monitoring (6.0) Translation (16.2) Deduction (4.7)
Self-evaluation (1.6) Inferencing (7.7) Total (42.8)
Total (8.5) Elaboration (7.0)
Obviously, the activity required extensive translating on the part of the
students. In order to decide what noun or verb was needed in the blank,
they had to recourse to their first language and see what would be needed
there. But there was much evidence of other strategy use, such as in the
example provided in Exhibit III-11. The student is trying to solve the sentence
"A las siete y media, vamos a la (N) para el desayuno" ("At seven-
yl
I I I -40
EXHIBIT I I I - 11
Excerpt froman Effective Spanish 1 Student's Cloze Think Aloud,
Spring 1986
St: (Okay, Rosa washes later than me. Urn ...(six- thirty we
go to the something for the something. We go to theCC,
we go to the would they go after washing? Um.
Let me think. Can I go on cos I might ...
Int: Yeah.e,
St: Okay. At eight we something ... of house and we go, I
(4'guess, that would be "vamos" (writes in vamos) Land we
go to school. L_So if they're going to school at 8, maybe
they'd go downstairs Vidon't know, I don't know how to
say it'\ We go ... urn, (that could be breakfast, we g
downstairs for breakfast. 6_31.1t I don't know how to say
downstairs.
Int: Where do you go to eat breakfast?)12--
St: To the dinint, room. Okay, so cocina is kitchen, sala is
dining, living rtom, and oh,Lcacina is kitchen, sala isYYI
ch.:zing room, oh. la sala ...LIcan't remember it.fHow about if I put they go to eat in the kitchen?
0.fr (6-0ID) fi(
C) elk%) Ci_uki-A-)c) 01414,)
1,vteirckk,t_e_Cf-eck64
e)fi (110f-Kv- C
fi (FL)elco Ce2P)Q cei47-)a,,c0itiA.t.e.-
L,) S - tv-e -e (v3)livt-cext4m3t-
Cofifa.)(rtzutri (gaA-u_)
)1,) 4 -movvik-111
ot) S -tAr-tk_t k-Lo)
41.kiori-htflovk
(spi#is)
thirty, we go to the for breakfast"). The (N) indicates to the student
that she blank calls for a noun.
Although the student's first step is to translate to English, it is not
immediately apparent to her what word is needed in the blank. She briefly
wonders what logically would follow (line 3, elaboration: questioning), reads
on to look for a clue (inferencing), translates the next section and fills in the
next blank with "vamos" (lines 6-8), then returns to the first blank with the
clue she was looking for, that perhaps Juan and his sister Rosa might be
going downstairs after washing (lines 8-9, elaboration: between parts). But
she does not know how to say downstairs (self-evaluation: word level) and
grabs onto the interviewer's suggestion that there might be another word
equally appropriate for the blank. She has obviously stored the Spanish
word for "dining room" in a group with other rooms and calls them forth in
a search for dining room (lines 14-15, 'trouping: recall). When she cannot
remember whether sala is living room or dining room (self-monitoring), she
opts for putting cocina (kitchen) in the blank (substititution). Incidental to
her solution is her correct inference that the word desayuno might mean
breakfast (lines 10-11).
The approach taken by this student was typical of the method used by most
effective students: translate the Spanish to English, search for an
appropriate word in English, then translate back into Spanish. It is
interesting to note that most of this student's translation takes place at the
phrase level (i.e., "at eight we something ... of house") as opposed to word by
word. While this reliance on translation may seem disturbing to foreign
language educators who would discourage excessive use of this strategy, it is
clear from this activity that (a) the nature of the activity promotes
I I - 4 2
C
translation, and (b) even the most effective students at this elementary level
of Spanish study find it necessary to resort to their native language in order
to understand. In addition to the translation, however, the student also
applied a wide range of other strategies, some of them quite efficient, such as
reading on to look for a clue (inferencing) and the substitution of cocina when
the word for dining room could not be recalled. This example also serves to
illustrate that the strategy of elaboration can be used in a variety of ways,
such as the questioning the student does, the relating of various parts of the
text to each other, and in the group of rooms she recalls. This strategy will
be discussed in more detail later in this section of the report, as well as two
other strategies she uses, inferencing and self-monitoring. As will be seen,
these strategies prove very useful and are often applied in combination.
In relation to the research question of whether student strategy use varies
depending upon the task, comparisons were made between strategies
employed by effective students during this activity and those used with
vocabulary and writing. Exhibit 111-12 lists those strategies showing a
difference in frequency of use across the three activities. As was found in
the Russian study, strategy use does vary with task. Writing, for example,
elicited heavy use of organizational plate a strategy unnecessary when
working with the doze and vocabulary tasks: The doze, on the other hand,
elicited far greater translation, deduction, resourcirig, and overall cognitive
strategy use than either the vocabulary task or writing. As was noted
above, the vocabulary task was not sufficiently difficult for the effective
students. The doze activity, however, was:
cognitive strategy uses, as opposed to 13.6
conclusion, it would seem that certain tasks
the students averaged 42.8
uses with vocabulary. In
tend to elicit high usage of
EXHIBIT III - 1 2
Differences in Effective Spanish 1 StudentStrategy Use Across Activities
(Spring 1966, Think Aloud Session 1)
LearningStrategy Doze
N X
ACTIVITYVocabularyN
Writing
Metecoonitive Strategies
OrgenizationelPlanning 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 39.4
Subtotal, PlanningStrategies 0.9 10.6 0.1 1.9 5.7 47.2
Total. MetacognItive 8.5 100.0 4.0 100.0 12.0 100.0
GNAW, Stratacies
Resourcing 1.1 2.6 0.5 4.0 0.1 1.0
Translation 16.2 37.9 6.5 48.0 3.4 27.4
Deduction 4.7 11.1 0.6 4.5 1.2 9.7
Substitution 0.1 0.0* 0.1 0.0* 0.9 7.1
Elaboration 7.0 16.4 3.1 22.6 5.0 39.8
Total, Cognitive 42.8 100.0 13.6 100.0 12.6 100.0
Total, All Strategies 56.8 20.6 20.9
' Lees then 12.Note: *ambers and percentages may vary slightly due to rounding.Note: Social effective strategies of cooperation and self-talk are not included here: the think aloud
interviews did not elicit these strategies.
certain strategies, while other tasks call for others. Strategies such as self-
monitoring and self-evaluation do not appear in Exhibit 111-12 because their
usefulness cuts across tasks.
Summary of Spanish 1 Spring 1986 Results
The data of Spanish 1 students showed that strategies are used as the need
arises. When the answer comes quickly to a student, as in the case of the
effective students and the vocabulary task, little cognitive processing (or
strategy use) is required. Although ineffective students consistently used
more strategies than their effective peers, a qualitative examination of the
data revealed that the ineffective's approach to language activities was not
nearly so purposeful and efficient as the good language learner's. The .
ineffective student tended to rely more heavily upon the dictionary and upon
asking the interviewer for help, rather than on his or her own store of
Spanish. Elaborations of the ineffective student were often negative self-
evaluations, as in the case of the student who, confronted with the writing
task, exclaimed, "I can't write in Spanish like that!" (41#07) Furthermore,
ineffective students tended to take so much time solving the initial activities
that they did not get to the tasks at the end of the workbook. These deficits
in performance seemed largely due to lack of interest and motivation in
learning the language, although there were indications that one or two of the
ineffective students suffered more from other learning difficulties.
Effective students, on the other hand, tended to be interested in studying
Spanish, had developed a store of the language to work with, had gained an
understanding of elementary rules of grammar and syntax, and employed a
variety of strategies in order to solve problems they encountered. This is
not to say that individual variation in style and ability was not apparentamong the effective students; in fact, differences were as noticeable betweenthe effective students as between the ineffectives. For example, the effectivestudents who were older or who had studied another foreign languageseemed more poised and controlled in working through the language activitiesthan younger effectives or those who were new to studying a foreignlanguage. The reading/grammar (cloze) example presented in Exhibit III-11above was drawn from an effective student (Spl#15) in her junior year whohad already studied five years of French. In contrast is the examplepresented below, drawn from a sophomore whose only prior languageexperience was one semester of French the previous year. She is workingon the exact same phrase as the first student, "At seven-thirty we go to the
(N) for breakfast."
St: A las siete y media ... that means, that's time ... seven-thirty ... vamos a la ... what are they asking? I knowthey're asking for a noun but where do you get it from, areyou just supposed to know it ... (Spi#13)
Clearly, this latter student has not yet developed the language learningknow-how of the first student, who calmly read on to search for a clue tothe missing noun. That the less sophisticated language learner wonderedwhere she was supposed to get the noun from indicates that studentsenrolled in beginning language courses could benefit from explicit instructionand practice in language learning strategies.
1 1 - 46
Spanish 3 Results: Spring 1986,
As mentioned at the beginning of the Results section, ineffectiveness, as a
term used to describe student performance, becomes relative at more
advanced levels of foreign language study. Students in Spanish 3 had elected
to continue their language study and all students, including those categorized
as ineffective learners, knew enough Spanish to be able to work within the
language. Thus, differences in the attitude, motivation, and language
proficiency of effective and ineffective students at this level were not soextreme as at the beginning level. Yet, despite the fact that effective and
ineffective students bore greater resemblance to each other at this level,
clear differences appeared between the two groups in how they performed in
the think aloud sessions. The results for listening, writing, and thereading/grammar doze activities are discussed below.
Strategy Use: Metacognitivz Cognitive. and Social/Affective. Similar to
findings with Spanish 1 and Russian students, strategy use of Spanish 3
students varied according to task. Exhibit 111-13 presents the average number
and percentage of metacognitive, cognitive, and social/affective strategies used
by both effective and ineffective students in each of the analyzed activities.
It is interesting to note that the average number of strategies students used
in writing is far greater than that used for listening or the doze. For
example, an effective student used an average of 74.7 strategies while
writing a paragraph, as opposed to 28.9 strategies while listening and 57.4 for
doze work. Ineffective students showed a similar pattern, with 46.7
strategies for writing, 20.0 for listening, and 37.5 for doze. Apparently,
those tasks which are productive in nature (as opposed to receptive) require
students to use or at least report more strategies. The doze task, which
1 I I - 47.n
=Miff I I I- 13
Proportions of Metacognitive. Cognitive and Social/Affective StrategiesUsed by Effective and Ineffective Spanish 3 Students
for the Listening. Writing. and Clue Activities
ActivityType ofLearningStrategy
Effective(n=7)
N X
Ineffective(n=4)*
N X
Total
N X
Listening Metecognitive 12.0 41.5 9.3 46.5 11.0 43.0
Cognitive 15.7 54.3 8.8 44.0 13.2 51.6
Social/Affective 1.1 3.8 2.0 10.0 1.5 5.9
Total 28.9 100.0 20.0 100.0 25.6 100.0
Writing MetacogniUve 38.4 51.4 19.0 40.7 32.6 492
Cognitive 30.6 41.0 19.7 42.2 27.3 412
Social/Affective 5.7 7.0 8.0 17.1 6.4 9.7
Total 74.7 100.0 46.7 100.0 66.3 100.0
Reading/ Metacognitive 19.3 33.6 9.3 24.8 15.6 31.1Grammerclue Cognitive 33.7 58.7 22.3 59.5 29.6 59.0
Social/Affective 4.4 7.7 5.8 15.5 4.9 9.8
Total 57.4 100.0 37.5 100.0 50.2 100.0
* The data of only 3 ineffective students were used in the analysis ofwriting. due to a poor writingthink aloud by one ineffective student.
Selected aspects of the data presented above, organized to show percentages of strategy use acrossactivities.
Type ofLemmingStrategy Listen
Effective
Writing Clue Listen
ineffective
Writing Ooze
tiotatognitivo 41.511 51.411 33.6/1 46.511 40.711 24.6S
CAPON 54.3 41.0 56.7 44.0 42.3 59.5
Social /Affect. 3.6 7,6 7.7 10.0 17.1 15.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Nets: limbers may not total to 100.011 due to rounding. 111-148.90
might be considered part receptive (reading) and part productive (filling in
the blank), shows an average strategy use that falls between those found for
listening and writing.
The small chart at the bottom of Exhibit 111-13 shows selected aspects of the
data and indicates that students, both effective and ineffective, changed the
type of strategy they used according to the requirements of the task at hand.
For example, effective students relied most heavily on metacognitive
strategies (i.e., RIADning) during the writing activity, but shifted to
predominately cognitive strategies (i.e., elaboration, deduction, and
translation) for both the listening and the reading doze activities. Both
groups showed the lowest proportion of metacognitive strategy use for thedoze task. Note that the ineffectives used a consistently higher percentage
of social/affective strategies across all three activities (i.e., Questioning for
clarification), a finding that emerged among the Spanish 1 ineffective students
as well.
These latter data are broad categorizations of strategies. Although they
indicate that students shift the type of strategy they use depending upon
what type of task they are engaged in, the percentages do not tell which
strategies students tend to use most for each task. An in-depth
examination of which strategies appear to be most useful to students at this
level is provided below.
Listening. The listening passage, about a Bolivian miner going to school at
night, was divided into four parts (see Appendix D for the student workbook
page for this activity and a script of the monologue). After each part was
I I I 49
played, the tape was stopped and the students were asked to say aloud the
thoughts they had had while listening. All differences in frequency of
strategy use reported were in favor of the effective students, as the listing
below indicates (see Appendix E for a complete listing of all strategies used):
Learning Effective StudentsStrategy N X
Ineffective StudentsN X
Metacognitive Strategies
Selective Attention 3.6 29.8 1.3 13.5
Self-evaluation 1.7 14.3 0.5 5.4
Total, Metacognitive 12.0 100.0 9.3 100.0
Cognitive Strategies
Note-taking 4.3 27.3 1.5 17.1
Elaboration 5.7 36.4 0.8 8.6
Total, Cognitive 15.7 100.0 8.8 100.0
The large differences between the number of times effective and ineffective
students used the strategies of selective attention, self-evaluation, note-
taking, and elaboration is as significant as the awl in which each usedthese strategies. Prior to the tape being played, effective students were
much more likely than ineffective students to use the introduction and
questions in the student workbook to generate ideas about what they might
hear in the passage. Effective students offered comments such as:
I'm thinking he's in a village, so it's gonna be a small town, andI don't think he's one of the well-to-do South Americans. Ithink he's probably going to be going to night school and I thinkof other dialogues or movies that we've seen. (Sp3.0),elaboration (academic) and inference)
1 1 1 - 5 0
He says he's going to tell you something about himself and hiscountry, so I'd probably be listening for something that I canrelate to, in terms of what I've seen, like mountains or Ecuadoror the jungles or something, like we learn about the little peoplewho live in the mountains or in the valleys, so I'll probably bethinking about that." (Sp3*06, elaboration (academic), selectiveattention, inference)
1 know what I want to be looking for. Just what the questionsask, I suppose. It seems like he probably goes to night school, ifhe does something for a livinE. (Sp3*11, selective attention,elaboration, inference)
Ineffective students showed a similar tendency to make use of the questions
in the workbook to prepare themselves for listening, but stopped short of
making predictions about what they might hear. They made remarks such
as, "I'm just trying to keep those questions and listen for clues about this"
(Sp3 *08, sehctive attention), and "I'm going to listen for certain words"
(Sp3*10, selective attention). What elaborations they offered were personal in
nature, such as "I was just thinking, it seems like it's simple. I hope it will
be and I'll be able to understand it" (Sp 34110), and "It seems if it's plain, if it's
not too hard, I'm going to understand it" (Sp3#02).
Once students actually began listening to the tape, other differences in
approach were evident. For one, effectives tended to take notes, jotting down
the answers to the questions as they heard them. Only one of the four
ineffective students made use of this strategy. Effective students were also
more likely to produce academic elaborations referring back to material
learned in class, and to elaborate, between the parts of the passage in order to
help themselves understand, as in the following example of a girl trying to
figure out what the narrator did for a living.
()1 1 1 - 5 1
k
First, when he said mineo, I didn't know what that means, butthen he went on and he said *but his country was famous forminerals" or was very rich in minerals and then he said in theend that he was a miner. So I could associate the three wordsand get the meaning of the first one, which I didn't know whenhe first said it, because of the context of the second and third.(Sp3#01, elaboration, (between parts), self-monitoring, andinference)
Effective students were also more likely to evaluate how well they weredoing, although this took a variety of forms. Of his performance, one student
said, "I understood almost all of that, cos a lot of it was in the film. If I
didn't see the film, I wouldn't know what he was talking about" (Sp3*09). Of
her strategy use, another student (Sp3*07) remarked, "I'm thinking that the
way I just listened to that isn't going to work. I was immediately trying to
translate and I wasn't quite catching what he was saying." Another
effective had written "mineral" in his workbook and, upon finding out that
the word was masculine, made the correction to "mineros" (production)
(Sp3#11). In contrast, the self-evaluation of ineffective students was limited to
such remarks as: "I didn't catch all of that" (Sp3#04) or "I never reallylistened that hard before. In class I listen, but sort of don't pay anyattention" (Sp34#10).
This latter comment reveals the role that motivation and interest play in a
student's decision to direct his or her attention to a listening (or other) task.
The student in question, having made the decision to listen hard, was able to
understand a fair amount of the passage. Ordinarily, though, he does not
make the effort. Two of the other ineffectives held similar attitudes. In
fact, only one ineffective reported an enthusiastic attitude towards studying
Spanish. Interestingly, she f,s the only ineffective across all levels (Spanish 1,
3 and 5) who is female. Her performance on the listening task showed that
she was operating at a very low perceptual level, having trouble
discriminating words and sounds; as a consequence, she understood almost
none of what she heard.
St: There's just one word I still didn't catch between hisname. Started with a "p", I didn't catch.
Int: Pueblo?St: Maybe it was that. It sounded like pero.Int: Yeah. (reading from script) "Pero en el pueblo ... "St: Oh, I guess he said it so fast, I thought it was one word.
(Sp3*02)
One new finding to emerge from the Spanish 3 listening data relates to
cognitive applications of the metacognitive strategy, selective attention.
Previously conceived of as something students decide to do in advance of an
activity (thus making the strategy metacognitive), the definition of selective
attention, has been broadened to take into account when students actually
follow through on their decision and selectively attend as they planned. The
example below illustrates the planning and on-line aspects of selective
attention.
(Before listening, on reading the word "village" in the questions:)Yeah, village, it's probably gonna be something I hope I'veheard of before!
(After listening:)He said what his name was and then he said, well, in myvillage, and then I thought, well, that's that word, so listen forwhat he's talking about. (Sp3*06)
Strategically, it is ineffective to decide in advance to listen for something in
particular and then not actually do so. The effective students followed
through on their plans to selectively attend much more than the ineffectives..
It may be that the action of taking notes according to the questions in the
workbook helped the effective students to focus their attention and remember
the pieces of information they were listening for; as one effective student put
1 1 1 5 3
it, as he wrote down the answers to two questions, "That time I just played
it right by the question. I knew what I wanted and they were all words Iknew, so ... I mean, you just gave (it to) me with the question there."(43#05)
One finding that was a bit surprising was that there was little quantitative
difference between the effective and ineffective students' use of the strategies
self-monitoring (an average of 5.4 times for each effective student and 5.3 for
the ineffectives) and inferencins( (2.4 as opposed to 1.8). A previous learning
strategies study with limited English proficient Hispanic students learningEnglish found that both self-monitoring and inferencing occurred morefrequently among effective listeners than among their ineffective
counterparts (O'Malley, Chamot, & KUpper, 1986). Here, however, it was clearthat both groups were concerned with trying to understand the passage and
were aware when they did not understand. Likewise, both groups tried to
infer meanings of words they did not know. The effective students, though,tended to persist more and were more successful at applying these twostrategies, most particularly self-monitoring, as the following two examplesillustrate.
Example of Self-Monitoring:
(Both students hear the word "minas" (mines) as "nilios", whichmeans children.)
An effective student's self-monitoring (Sp3#07):When he started talking about children, I thought he was goingto start talking about his town, but he didn't. He startedtalking about minerals, and I said wait. I was like, what, dokids work? (also inferencing and elaboration (questioning))
An ineffective student's self-monitoring (30.10):His country is ... produces a lot of minerals? and he has niiios,or does he have a lot of nifios? (also question for clarification,)
This example illustrates how simply counting numbers of strategy uses does
not capture qualitative differences in student behavior. The effective
student's thoughts are analytical; she projects ahead, then questions when
the new information coming in does not logically follow her expectations.
The ineffective appears to receive the information more passively and
expresses his uncertainty about what he has understood by asking theinterviewer for verification. Both students mistake the word "minas" for
"nifios" and both are monitoring their comprehension, but only the effective
student is reacting to each part she hears, forming impressions, and not only
identifies the inconsistency in what she has heard but ponders how the
information might fit after all ("What, do children work?").
Example of Inferencing:
An effective student's inferencing: (Sp3#05)I didn't know what minas was. Cos he said there were lots ofminas but... I figured it out cos it sounds like mine. And he saidthat's where he worked. I thought, I don't know that word andjust have to wait and see if they mention it again, cos itsounded like something important. (also selective attention andtransfer)
An ineffective student's inferencing: (Sp3#10)I heard rico and minerales and - does he work in a mine? Iheard miflo or something like that. I heard that and thought itwould be a mine. (also question for clarification and transfer)
In the inferencing example, both students decide that "mina" must mean
"mine," transferring from English based on similar sound. The ineffective
student, however, uses isolated words (rico, minerales) to piece the meaning
of the sentence together ("does he work in a mine?"), while the effective
student works towards the meaning using larger chunks of language (i.e.,
"he said there were lots of mines" and "he said that's where he worked").
He also makes a mental note to listen for the word "minas" again (selective
attention), supposedly to verify his inference, because it seemed important.
And finally, incidental to the inferencing process is the fact that the effective
student retains the correct Spanish word while the ineffective retains an
incorrect approximation ("miiio").
Writing. Students were asked to write a short paragraph about the picture
presented in Appendix D. The picture was a very busy intersection of two
streets which allowed students the latitude to choose as they saw fit from avariety of scenarios. Clear differences appeared in the way effective and
ineffective students went about the writing task, as well as in the
paragraphs they produced. The top of Exhibit 111-14 presents a list of those
strategies for which a difference in student use during writing emerged.
(Appendix E presents a complete listing of all strategies used during writing.)
While both effective and ineffective students used metacognitive strategies in
roughly the same proportion in writing (i.e., 28.3R of effective students'
metacognitive strategy use was organizational planning, 26.38 for theineffectives), the effective students used them more often (i.e., almost 11
organizational plans for each effective student, as compared with 5 for eachineffective). This may correspond to the fact that effective students wrote
more words and sentences than the ineffectives, as is shown below.
Category Effective Ineffective
Average number ofsentences written 7.1 3.7
Average number ofwords in the paragraph 56.9 37.7
Average number ofwords in a sentence 8.0 10.1
P-7
1 1 1 - 5
EXHIBIT I I I - 14
Strategies Showing A Difference in Usagefor Effective and Ineffective Spanish 3 Students
in Writing and Reeding Cloze
Activity Learning Frequency of UsageStrategy
Writing Metscoonitive StrateaiesOrganizationalPlannirg
Self-monitoring
Self-evaluation
Total, Metscognitive
Cognitive StrategiesRepetition
Deduction/Induction
Substitution
Total, Cognitive
TOTAL. ALL STRATEGIESUSED IN WRITING
Reacting/Grwunar Metacoonitive Strategiesdoze Self-monitoring
Self-evaluation
Total, Metscognitive
ommuummnTranslation
Deduction/Induction
Elaboration
Total, Cognitive
TOTAL, ALL STRATEGIES
USED IN CL021
EffectiveN X
IneffectiveN X
10.9 28.3 5.0 26.3
16.0 41.6 9.3 49.1
10.0 26.0 4.0 21.1
38.4 100.0 19.0 100.0
2.0 6.5 0.7 3.4
4.3 14.0 1.7 8.5
4.4 14.5 0.7 3.4
30.6 100.0 19.7 100.0
74.7 46.7
14.1 73.3 6.3 67.6
3.0 15.6 1.5 16.2
19.3 100.0 9.3 100.0
9.1 27.1 6.3 27.8
11.0 32.6 7.0 31.1
8.1 24.2 4.3 18.9
33.7 100.0 22.5 100.0
57.4 373
Apparently, the effective students, more than the ineffectives, possessed the
ability to write quickly about a variety of different scenes. The effectives
were also more consistent as a group in how they went about planning and
writing and in how much they wrote; 5 of the 7 effectives wrote paragraphs
of more than 50 words. The ineffectives, on the other hand, were very
different from each other, ranging from the female student (Sp 34002) who
wrote three sentences averaging 17 words each to a male student (Sp3#08)
who wrote four sentences averaging 6 words each. Interestingly, though,
almost all the students produced a cohesive paragraph that maintained a
consistent perspective (i.e., the policeman's point of view) rather than aseries of sentences that had no connection between them. This would seem
to indicate that the writing skills they have learned in English are being
applied to writing tasks in Spanish.
What critical differences appear in the quality of their production, however,
seem to be related to the effective students' greater proficiency in the
language and the greater flexibility with which they approach the task.
Exhibit 111-15 presents brief excerpts from an effective and ineffective
student's think aloud; these will be used to illustrate some key differences in
how each group went about writing.
Ortanizational Planning. Flower and Hayes (1980) suggest that
Planning is one of the most effective strategies for handling the number of
constraints that the task of writing presents. "Plans allow writers to reduce
"cognitive strain," that is, to reduce the number of demands being made on
conscious attention" (Flower & Hayes, 1980, pp. 31-32). This premise is
certainly borne out by the Spanish 3 writing data, where all students
I I I -5P
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1.0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
D e l i B I T 1 i 1 - 1 5Excerpts from WMting Think Aloud, of Effective and effective Spanish 3 Students
Effective Stedest (e03): Result: En :vended to Limon.
Student begins with Urn sentences about Alberto. the policemen. and how he is scared thatwill hive NI accident. Then...
St: Los automobiles Will have. van a toner un accidentsb.
(ViriUng) Um..tftend upr
doing so. I could say en realided... um. in reoliciad4 now I'M thinking of whatto all the
automobiles but Ed just use a subject prounoun\which I cant.. 1 guess, yeah. Ill use a
subjact. pronoun.
Int: Yeah. what? You just made a decision about something.
St.:
Int:
St.:
Yeah. Um...what to all cars.
and say do. Um. they do have one. Uh.
wet urn.. Iln thinking of the right word to soy that they have this accident. um... I
guess fit just hove to repeat R. En reallded... (tenon un accidente
kw you entertain certain words and throw them out?
oah, and rm to throw this out if I can. There's a much more mural way to say
crosses out 'Henn un acddentir and puts 10 (weal
elks and I can at drop that. Wave that out
Mc I don't think would be the right
- tioneril
Ineffective Slimiest (4'02): Result: Soy polkle y me gusts macho pro con unos modesmoderns. is muy dificiles trabajar con todo violencia.
St: thing that came into cy hoed is that I should take something easy whore I an 1,-)6-moLvute(0i,S0stick to my own vocabulary. (11hink I'm gonna be the policemen and I'm gonna describe.
Um... (pause Does that have an article for that?
Mt: talkie?
St: br_o_esit have an accent ? Itiso bad at this.
Int: esh. (observing student write) Mly did you cross that (the word pure) out?
St: 6m I'm gonna put that later. (muttering) Modem soe...(11 thinking how to say
0 Coe Ctrur
ci) fealw6-1PADAZkv (rt.)900xtom/(11,-,toteulte,60
rein ways. I guess fil say un mode modem... (AAcra:)
Int: (
1)* (91.)
-01.,-I see wire docking its as you go along.
St: Yeah, I gums i de Met. Es-. (toes on talk) (nn thinking °waft haw. fin pawn ;13 ftLATI°4.3E45whet 1 serene lltuys think in English when I write . I don't know if you 16/-woe ev..01
seY the" 501:7?1)
St: Iffshard work. With. you know. modern sbAlUm...con...rnoder 11%**Swnetwie-kri.Vt.
way* n.twjahigaLlviolence. ago violence up in dlcUmury)Gysaknost the some. b1)49-1,f.°LtA.1(-)tiv't
Rut: (reeding what student has writhe) redo do vielencia. GIA.10/fvutscceSt: dais you medal hive the de.Lisuelly like pitting In de. .tip) S -inn tauInt: You do? Wirt is put? Ira)St: It leeks nicer.
should or not. MA 1 'ION Mid so... is much... (plume) tribe*.
knt: teading what student has written) Es may difkil tribe*?
BEST COPY AVAILABLE et) 001. crxim-e-)
it1 -59
showed evidence of planning aspects of what they were going to write. The
effective students. as mentioned, generated more than twice as many plans
as the ineffective students. This is in keeping with the fact that they also
wrote nearly twice as much.
As was apparent in the Spanish 1 data, the plans that both Spanish 3 groups
made showed varying degrees of specificity, ranging from the discourse plan
of the ineffective student who decides to organize her paragraph around being
the policeman and describing what she sees going on around her (line 14), to
the general plan ("I guess I should say something about the dog", Student
Sp3#01), to the sentence level plan of the effective in the excerpt ("they end
up doing so", lines 1-2), to the phrase level plan used by many students.
When the "plans" are tallied by type of plan made, differences appear
between effective and ineffective students, as follows:
Type of Plan Effective Ineffective
Discourse-level 0.7 0.3
General 3.3 1.7
Sentence-level 5.1 0.7
Phrase-level 1.6 2.0
"To Compose" 0.1 0.3
Total: 10.9 5.0
Thus, while ineffective students tended to rely more upon phrase-level
planning, the effectives were planning at all levels and most at the sentence
level. The category "to compose" is also drawn from Flower and Hayes (1980)
and is shown in the ineffective student's remark "I'm gonna put that later"
III - 6011.1
(line 19) and in the effective's "I'm going to throw this out, if I can" (line 11).
This type of plan Focuses upon the writing process as opposed to the product.
Self-monitoring. Students use self-monitoring to check that their
paragraphs are making sense (comprehensibility), that the words are
correctly spelled (production), or that the words they are using meet with
some internal standard of style. Effective students monitored more
frequently than the ineffectives (an average of 16 times versus 9.3);
moreover, there was a qualitative difference in the way they monitored.
For example, the ineffective student, in lines 15, 17, 21, and 29, monitors for
the accuracy of her production, while the effective student is more focused
on the stylistics of his paragraph, not wanting to repeat the word accidente
or automoviles which would violate writing rules" about undue use of the
same word. He knows there is a more natural way to say what he wants
to say and struggles until he finds it (lines 11-12); this is a much more
sophisticated self-monitoring than the ineffective student's wondering if a
word needs an accent mark or not. Although effective students monitored
their production, no ineffective student showed evidence of monitoring for
style. This difference in performance may be due to the effective students'
generally greater proficiency in Spanish.
Another qualitative difference in how each effectiveness group self-monitored
mirrors what was found among the Russian students: auditory and visual
monitoring, or whether something sounds or looks right. An example of
auditory self-monitoring comes from an effective student who repeatedly
made decisions by bouncing words off his internal ear.
a/St: J Now, if I were one of the robbers,(si estis, uess this'd CA) ?10._%/1 CCO
19) fi i vi-)have to be preterite, I don't know, I think... (in Frenchi (2/ t) b44.4_,4i.tiCA.A:AA.,
it'd probably be conditional, but (I don't know conditional 61,..)--,A/u5,A,LAIN(
in Spanish. So, uh, I would say est-uv-i that's (G- itu.&1(A.CCkz.)
it. Estuve. e)ce1:%16tAf:'"1
f' ill/r-----t,sine tuve, estuvo, estuve, si estuve... that's no.:1,0 1 efy-tuitt,k-e-{
Int: ,How did you figure out what that was?i-) 6 -movtikvi LAAA))
Aile-Rf& ti 01/1---
St: ( I knew preterite, it's estuv- but the endings for the 1-) 6 oil. ovvz.i-bi (Ata>)
first person is either "i" or "e" and I just decided it was itA)ttt.)41M Auk0"1)1/4.
Int: How did you decide though?
St: Las estuvi sounds dumb. (Sp3 *05)
As in this example, auditory self-monitoring is often linked to the effective
group's greater use of repetition. By repeating various forms of the word
and moving the accent mark around, the student finally arrives at the
correct conjugation of estar in the preterite (estuve), although he recognizes
that the tense he really needs is the conditional, something he does not know
in Spanish. Of all the students, the "exceptional" effectives showed the
greatest inclination to monitor using the "ear", showing that they have
developed an internal idea of how Spanish sounds; this "ear" often proved to
be what decided them to use one word or another ("quien, quien or que, I
don't... que sounds better but quien would seen right, so I'll put que",
Sp3.05).
113111-62
Self evaluation. Self-evaluation, as was seen in the Spanish I data,
can be done at a variety of levels ranging from the word ("hacer algo por
'prevent'- no, I can't say that", *05), the phrase ("then, entonces un perro
camina, no... I don't know how to say walks up to me", *06), the sentence
("en el biblioteca... el hombre que estudia, uh, quiere silencia, that's one
sentence I can say", *03), for production ("now I've got to check all this
stuff", *06), for strategy use ("you shouldn't always usP the dictionary, cos
it's so hard, which word to use", *02), and finally, evaluation of ability ("I
have a lot of trouble writing in Spanish cos words don't come up into my
mind very easily", *03) and performance ("so, hacer algo, that's okay", *05).
It should be noted that remarks such as the ineffective student's "I'm so bad
at this" (line 17) were generally not viewed as straight self-evaluations, but
rather as a form of elaboration called elaboration/self-evaluation because
elements of both strategies exist in the remark. Such elaborative/self-
evaluative remarks were tallied as incidences of elaboration. Only when a
statement seemed to be seriously meant as a self-evaluation (as opposed to a
personal elaboration or expression of emotion) was it coded as self-evaluation
alone.
Coding by the subcategories listed above revealed that the majority of self-
evaluation took place at the word level and in reference to overall
ability/performance. The effective students used self-evaluation more than
the ineffectives, but this may be an artifact of how much mere they wrote.
In generating more sentences, they had greater opportunity to evaluate
whether or not they knew words they wanted to use, as well as to examine
the quality of what they were producing.
111_6; 1-4
Deduction. Both effective and ineffective students made use of theirknowledge of rules as they wrote, although the effectives more frequentlymentioned this strategy. In the example of self-monitoring on the previouspage, the several incidences of deduction illustrate that it, like otherstrategies, can take various forms and degrees of specificity. The student'sfirst deduction is general: he decides that he should conjugate the verb estar(to be) in the preterite tense. Then he monitors this deduction by recognizing
that in French he would use the conditional tense. While this remark is alsodeductive in nature, it is offered as an elaboration and so is coded
elaboration/deduction, illustrating (a) that strategies are often so intertwined
as to be inseparable, and (b) that coding decisions in such cases may be based
upon the function of the strategy within the context of its appearance.(Another example of intertwined strategies is apparent in his reference to
French, which is coded as elaboration/transfer because he is reflecting upon
how he would proceed in French, not actually transferring information from
French to use with Spanish (he does not know the Spanish conditional).
Thus, the remark is viewed as elaborative, although it contains clearelements of transferring between languages.)
The student's second deduction is more specific; he applies the rule forconjugating estar in the preterite ("I knew preterite, it's estuv- "), but has to
auditorily self-monitor to arrive at the correct ending for the root "estuv."Thus, in the brief example, the student uses two types of deduction: the first
is broad (which tense?) and, once decided, leads to the second (what root?).
Both of these deductions are different from the one used by the effective
student in Exhibit 111-15, who knows he can use a subject pronoun to avoid
repeating the word autombviles (line 2-3). What seems to be apparent in
examining the ways in which effective and ineffective students use deduction
is that effective students not only have a more solid grasp of rules in
Spanish, but also have extensive metalinguistic awareness about otheraspects of forming sentences. This latter observation may reside upon the
fact that six of the seven effective students have studied another foreign
language beyond the first year; none of the ineffective students could make
this claim.
Substitution. Neither student excerpt in Exhibit 111-15 shows use of
substitution, but the strategy proved more useful to the effective students.
Use of the strategy was often linked to self-evaluation, as in the following
example:
Let's see, en la biblioteca, urn, I'm thinking how to saylibrarian, and I don't know how to say it, so I might as welljust say the lady. (Sp3.09)
The ability - or flexibility - to revise the original plan to get around
unknown words or difficult structures was one of the characteristics of the
effective students as they wrote; ineffective students seemed more likely to
ask the interviewer for the missing information, look in the dictionary, or
get frustrated and give up, moving on to planning a different sentence or
stopping writing completely ("I guess that's itTM, Sp3 *08).
Thus, it can be seen that the effective students' greater use of certain
strategies while writing was in part due to their flexibility and proficiency
in Spanish, as well as their exposure to studying other languages. They
were not as likely as the ineffective students to get bogged down in the
details of accent marks, and were more likely to 12,111n at the sentence level,
monitor, using their internal ear and with attention to style, evaluate their
knowledge base and substitute, if necessary. It appears as if their writing
goals drove their writing, rather than the fact that they did not know a
certain word or could not remember a particular conjugation or structure.
It is particularly revealing that the effective students expressed far fewer
feelings of inadequacy when faced with this task; instead they moved
themselves decisively through the activity.
Reading and Grammar cloze. The last activity in the Spanish 3 student
workbook was a reading and grammar doze entitled "Un Via je a Madrid"
(see Appendix D). The paragraph described Juanita's trip to Madrid to visit
her cousin Clara; students were asked to read the story and fill in the blanks
with the appropriate conjugation of the verb provided in parentheses.
Appendix E presents a complete listing of the frequency of all strategies used
by effective and ineffective students to do this. Listed at the bottom of
Exhibit 111-14 are the strategies for which a difference in average usage was
apparent between these students groups; these are: self - monitoring, self-
evaluation, total metacoznitive, translation, deduction/induction, elaboration,
total cognitive, and total of all strategies used in the doze. Interestingly,
these strategies are nearly the same as those found to be used most often by
the Spanish 1 effective students to perform their reading/grammar doze.
Selected aspects of these strategies are discussed below.
,half-monitoring. Self-monitoring functioned in the doze activity much
as it did in other activities, in that students checked their comprehension and
production, but there were some noticeable differences in how this strategywas used as well. For one, no monitoring for style was necessary (see
writing results above). Further, effective students used a form of self-
monitoring called double check, a subcategory of this strategy previously
undetected. In double check self-monitoring, the student has identified a
problem area or uncertainty which he or she returns to at some point in the
exercise, either because it is still unresolved or because he or she has found a
clue to its solution. This holding of the question in the mind and returning
to it is the double check. Only effective students showed this tendency. The
most noteable application, occurring across almost all effective students, was
the close monitoring of what tense Juanita was using as she described her
trip to Madrid. Another example of the double check is provided in the box
below.
Student is working on the sentence: "Nosotros (divertirse) tantoqua yo no (querer) irme", or "We (enjoyed ourselves) so muchthat I (did not want) to leave."
I think it's gonna be I didn't want to leave. Urn ... queri, peroyo no queri irme. I know that this is an irregular verb butwhat I'm just gonna assume is that querer is not gonna have aradical change in the past, so in a way I'm sort of guessing, andI think I'm right, that it would be queri.
(after finishing exercise, Interviewer tells him "And with quererin the past, it's quiso. 0-u-i-s is the root.") So it is aradical. (Sp3*03)
Effective students also relied upon auditory self- monitoring, as in this
student who is trying to figure out the past tense of dar (to give): "I know
it's i-o, but I'm not sure if it's supposed to be digo, dio doesn't sound right,
decio doesn't sound right either"(30.11). This bouncing sounds off the ear
occurred only once among the ineffective students.
Self-evaluation. Effective students evaluated themselves twice as
much as the ineffectives. The strategy took the same forms as in the
writing activity; both sets of students evaluated their word knowledge ("I
don't know what abrazo is", *10), their ability to perform the task ("of
course it's subjunctive and I don't know subjunctive preterite", *07), and
some of the strategies they used (I'm just saying it to myself and seeing if
anything pops into my head. It's not working very well", *08). Only the
effective students, however, showed an inclination to evaluate after the task,
wanting to know how many of the blanks they had correctly filled in and
asking about some of the questions they had had during the activity.Clearly, they had invested themselves, in the task and cared to know howthey had done.
(Upon looking at the interviewer's script with the answersfilled in):
Llevabal Oh my gosh, I got these wrong. But couldn't they bepast ten- they could be present tense. . If you took it context-wise. Oh, I don't know that tense. Okay. Querria... oh man,oh mt.n! Tuve! Oh my gosh, that's so right! Oh man, I don'tknow why I'm writing on these things.
(crosses out her incorrect responses and writes in correctanswers) (Sp3*06)
Elaboration. As in other activities, elaboration took many forms. Both
effective and ineffective students most frequently elaborated academically,
followed by elaborations between the Darts of Juanita's story, but effective
students elaborated in both ways much more frequently (8.1 times, as
compared with the ineffective's average of 4.3).
In summary, this task seemed to stimulate more thought in the effective
students than in the ineffectives. Although both groups used the same
strategies in similar ways, the effectives used them more frequently and
with greater versatility. How this impacts upon performance, in a
qualitative way, can be seen in Exhibit 111-16, which shows how one effective
I I - 6 8
Cli141.IT 1 1 I - 1 6Excerpts from Clue Think Maude of Effective and ineffective Spanish 3 Students
Sentence being worked on: Nosotros (divertirse) tenth quo yo no (querer) Irmo.We (enjoyed ourselves) so much that I (didn't want) to %Ira.
Clone excerpt from an Effective Student (4005):
f b c,1 St: Nosotros nos._this rsn't mottor.lno. it does, diver-. this is the some in2 tresont or preteritefso I cent loT them, tango quip yono worm, an *MC oh
3 ( that's lute. okay. Yo no quieretoops, quiero irme.
(Lstir, working on another =tame that he's decided stould be pretorits tense)
4 St: (414m thinking this should have been preterits too. go beck and worry about that
5 later.
(At the end of the activity. he returns to this sentence. as he said he would.)
E St: (Amin, to go beck and change these to preterite. I didn't want to leave would be
7 guise I believe.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
awe Excerpt of an ineffective Student (4010):
St: Mantras... sh.
Mt: Whet are you thinking?a.)104A4.)-Gttir.
St: (teflexsive. (underlines the "se- on divertirse) Okay. nosotros... I think it would be SattrA);ACUANt.e.oti)
19) Q croi \1124'C) 6 -0.40viAlloi t1441)
nos?
int: You stopped there. Met were you thinking?
St: gwes just getting the spelling, like copying it the rover. I just went beck to
make sure I was speihng it correctly. (by looking at the infinitive provided) Tonto csa
yo... nue yo no... ir.lJust looking et this word (irme) reminds me of how those things
used to leek weird.
Int: Mist. the reileitsivo ones?
St: Yeah. Especially Wine. On yo no quite. (writes in word) irme.
(tato% working on the next sentence. which doesn't make scree to him)
19 St: Ction't know whet this is (pointing to diverUree) but she...
2 0 Int: Vast are you thinking?
21 St: I don't know *et it could be. I dont know whet this is.
22 kt: TWO to have fun.
2 3 St: .24 Int: Se numb.
Vesowia-i-60614scsi-.1Ara
e)S-frArt.tN'fbabor
eii0/0)
12) BEST COPY AVAILABLE
and one ineffective student approached solving the same sentence. Clearly,
the effective student reacts more analytically to the sentence, immediately
recognizing that divertirse (to enjoy- oneself) conjugates the same in thepresent and the preterite (although he momentarily doubts this). He fills in
the two blanks in the sentence and moves on, only to discover further down
the page that he should have placed querer in the preterite. The fact that
he has not forgotten what has gone before indicates that, as a reader, he isnot looking at each sentence as isolated from the others in the paragraph, a
separate task to be solved. Rather, he is actively aware that sentences in a
story are generally joined together by a consistent voice. He does not
immediately correct the mistake, however, because he does not want to
interrupt his concentration; he returns at the end of the activity to fix theproblem. The impression that his performance leaves is that he is both an
analytical and disciplined student.
The ineffective student, on the other hand, returns to this sentence because
he does not understand what follows. He did not pay attention to the
meaning of the sentence when he first read it but only filled in the verbs,
and finds that the next sentence's logic resides upon understanding what has
gone before. The care he took to spell divertimos correctly, a self-monitoring,
would have been better spent in monitoring what the sentence meant.
Summary of Spanish 3 , Sprint 1986 Results
The Spring 1986 think alouds of the Spanish 3 students were among the most
fascinating generated during this period of data collection. As was found for
beginning Spanish students and the Russian students, both effective and
ineffective learners in Spanish 3 use strategies in accordance to their need
and the task at hand. Certain strategies are used more frequently in one
task than in another (i.e., note-taking and selective attention for listening,
and planning and substitution for writing). There is evidence that strategies
such as self-monitoring, self-evaluation, deduction, and elaboration tend to be
used more often by effective language learners at this level than by those
who are ineffective, and also that a qualitative difference exists in how the
strategies are used by these two student groups. These latter strategies
appear to be useful in performing many different tasks and may take
slightly different forms depending upon the task; for example, self-monitoring
while writing might consist of checking a verb's conjugation by repeating it
aloud to bounce it off an "internal" ear (auditory), while self-monitoring
during a doze activity might involve finding the answer to a question asked
earlier in the exercise (double check).
The differences in attitude, proficiency, and performance found between the
two effectiveness groups at the Spanish 1 level are not so glaring and extreme
at Spanish 3. Ineffective students do seem to be familiar with and use many
different strategies; the fact is that they, like their more effective peers,
possess a working knowledge of Spanish. Effective Spanish 3 students,
however, appear to use a wider range of strategies than the ineffectives, as
well as to persist more in finding solutions to the problems they encounter.
Spanish 5 Results: Spring 1986
Data were collected on a total of six (6) Spanish 5 students during the first
semester of the study. Of these, 4 were classified as effective learners and 2
as less effective. As mentioned previously, all students who continue to an
advanced level of foreign language study can be considered reasonably
effective language learners, and those who have reached the advanced level
(Spanish 5 and 6) may differ only slightly in their degree of effectiveness.
The data of the two less effective Spanish 5 students were compared to that
of two of the more effective students. The criterion used to select the two
effective students (rather than all four) was completeness of data. For
example, students for whom there was no data on an activity to be analyzed
(i.e., because of a poor think aloud) or for whom there were no longitudinal
data are not included in the comparative analysis. Results for the two
activities analyzed, the writing sample and for the reading/grammar doze,
are discussed below.
Strategy Use: Metacolnitive. Cognitive, and Social/Affective. Exhibit 111-17
presents the average number and percentage of total strategy use formetacognitive, cognitive, and social/affective strategies. While comparisons
cannot be made between the number of strategies students used to do one
task versus the other (because the figures reported for the doze activity
represent tallies for only the first six sentences of the doze, not the entire
passage), differences are apparent in the type of strategy used by students
for the two tasks. The chart at the bottom of Exhibit III-17 highlights this
latter comparison.
11 - 72
EXHIBIT I I I 17
Proportion of Metacognitive, Cognitive and Social/Affective StrategiesUsed by Effective and Less Effective Spanish 5 Students
for the Writing, and Cloze Activities,Spring 1986
ActivityType ofLearningStrategy
Effective(n=2)
N R
Less Effective(n=2)"
N R
Total(n=4)*
N R
Writing Metacognitive 22.5 52.3 17.0 56.7 20.7 53.5
Cognitive 18.0 41.9 9.0 30.0 15.0 38.8
Social/Affective 2.5 5.8 4.0 13.3 3.0 7.8
Total 43.0 100.0 30.0 100.0 38.7 100.0
Reading/ Metacognitive 12.0 34.8 7.0 20.9 9.5 27.9GrammarOoze Cognitive 21.5 62. 3 20.5 61.2 21.0 61.8
Social/Affective 1.0 2 . 9 6.0 17.9 3.5 10.3
Total 34. 5 100.0 33.5 100.0 34.0 100.0
The data of only 1 less effective student were used in the analysis of writing.
Selected aspects of the data presented above, organized to show percentages of strategy use acrossactivities.
Type of Effective ineffectiveLearningStrategy Writing Cloze Writing Cloze
Metacognitive 52.3% 34.8% 54.8% 20.9%
Cognitive 41.9 62.3 32.3 61.2
Social/Affective 5.8 2.9 12.9 17.9
Note: Numbers may not total to 100.0% due to rounding.
As can be seen, both effective and less effective students used proportionately
more metacognitive strategies for the writing task, but proportionately more
cognitive strategies for the doze task. This parallels the strategy use ofSpanish 3 students. Similiarly, Spanish 5 less effective students, as withSpanish 3 ineffective students, used more social/affective strategies (e.g.,
guestioning for clarification) than did their more effective peers.
The section below describes and provides examples of particular strategies
used by Spanish 5 effective and less effective students for the writing anddoze tasks.
Writing. Students were asked to write a short paragraph about the picture
presented in Appendix D (the same picture was used for Spanish 3 students).
Only one of the less effective students produced a writing sample, so thatcomparisons of strategy use between effective and less effective students can
be made only on a case study basis. Exhibit 111-18 lists the strategies which
were used differentially by the two groups of students for the writing task.
The less effective student used nearly the same proportion of metacognitive
strategies as did the effective students (54.8X, as compared with 52.3X,respectively), but the average number of metacognitive strategies used wasgreater for the effective students (22.5) than for the less effective one (17.0).The most frequent types of metacognitive strategies used were:
organizational planning, self- monitoring, and self-evaluation. The averagenumber of planning and self-monitoring strategies used by all three studentsdid not differ greatly. Effective students planned an average of 8 times and
EXHIBIT III 1 8
Strategies Showing Differences in Average UsageBetween Effective and Less Effective Spanish 5 Students
During WRITING, Spring 1986
LearningStrategy
Effective(n=2)
Less Effective(n=1)
X
Odig9911Eklakittel
Self-evaluation 7.0 31.1 4.0 23.5
Other Metacognitive 15.5 68.9 13.0 76.5
Total, Metacognitive 22.5 100.0 17.0 100.0
Coon Iva Strategies
Translation 2.5 13.9 7.0 77.8
Deduction/Induction 3.5 19.4 0.0
Substitution 2.0 11.1 0.0
Elaboration 8.5 47.2 1.0 11.1
Other Cognitive 1.5 8.3 1.0 11.1
Total, Cognitive 18.0 100.0 9.0 100.0
§ocial/Affective Strati° les
2.5 100.0 4.0 100.0Total
TOTAL, ALL STRATEGIES 43.0 30.0
11 The think aloud interviews did not tend to elicit the strategies of cooperation or self-talk. Thenumbers reported here represent predominately the use of questioning for clarification orverification.
Note Numbers and percentages may vary slightly due to rounding.
1 I 1 -75 1 2 '3
self-monitored an average of 7 times, while the less effective student used
both strategies 6 times each.
Differences were found, though, in self-evaluation, which the effective
students used an average of 7 times and the less effective only 4 times.
Further, in examining the types of self-evaluation used, four distinctapproaches emerged; these approaches mirror the types of self-evaluationfound among the Spanish 3 students. The features associated with each
(including the action taken by the student) are described below:
Evaluation of language repertoire, at the word or phrase level. As
has been described in previous sections of this report, in evaluation of thissort the student realizes that a word or phrase is not known or available.This happened to both effective and less effective students during the writingactvity. What the students decided to do in the face of this obstacle,however, varied.
Possible actions students can take are to leave a blank, write the missingword in English, or find the translation in the dictionary. Examples of thisare: "I can't remember what policeman is. El ... el ... el ... I'll leave itblank" (Sp5#02) and "I know I can say hit, but I want to say break" (student
looks word up in dictionary) (Sp5a02). The less effective student self-evaluated and took this type of action 4 times, and did not react in any otherway. Resorting to the dictionary was used only once by an effective student.
Another action the student can take in the face of missing language is tosubstitute a known word or phrase for the problemmatic first choice, as inthis student who is trying to think of the Spanish word for collision,
III-76
... urn, I don't know how to say it ... let's see ... and now I'm going to
say ... maybe they came from two different streets" (Sp5#02) or in another's
"I don't know manhole, but I'm just going to say hole or something like that"
(Sp54003). Substitution was the strategy most frequently used by the two
effective students when they found a blank in their language repertoire (6
instances, or an average of 3 per student). By evaluating what they did not
know and getting around this difficulty by using familiar language, these
students were able to make productive use of what they already knew in
Spanish rather than abandoning the problem (by leaving a blank) or relying
on translation and resourcing (by using a dictionary).
Evaluation of ability, as in "I'm trying to figure out parte. Is
parte ... this always gives me problems. Is parte el or la?" (Sp5*03). There
were 3 instances (or an average of 1.5) of this type of self-evaluation by
effective students. This type of self-evaluation suggests a metacognitive
awareness of one's ability as a learner and student.
Evaluation of written product, for accuracy, style or completeness.
One effective student critiqued a phrase she was writing by saying "I'm sure
it sounds terrible, even in English grammar ... " (Sp5 *02), while the other
effective said "Now I'm thinking, why did I put unos?" and went back and
corrected what she had written (Sp5 *03). Self-evaluation of production,
which occurs during the revision stages of composition, was applied 4 times
by the effective students (or an average of 2 times per student); the less
effective student did not examine his work in this way at all.
To sum up, the difference in metacognitive strategy use between effective
and les- effective students was mainly that effective students used self-
evaluation combined with substitution!, to generate sentences in Spanish,
seemed to be aware of their own level of ability for writing in Spanish, and
went back over their writing to revise for errors. Again, it should beremembered that the sample of students is very small.
Differences in cognitive strategy use during writing were quite apparent,with an average of 18 instances for effective students, and only 10 for theless effective student. All three students made use of translation, but wherethe less effective student used this stratgy for 70X of his cognitive strategies,
the effective students used translation for 111X of their cognitive strategies.
Examples of the way in which translation was used differentially were thatthe less effective student indicated that after planning what to say inEnglish, he would then try to find translations into Spanish. As he wrote, he
indicated an English word, then searched for the Spanish equivalent, such. as:" to fall - esti cayendo ... inside - al dentro de un ... manhole - I'm surethat's not going to be in here, so I'll Just put manhole" (Sp5 *01). The effective
students, on the other hand, indicated that they were composing directly in
Spanish for the most part, but occasionally would resort to translating fromEnglish. For instance, when asked if she thinks in English first and thentranslates, one effective student replied, "Occasionally, when I run across aword that I can't ... like, this part, en un area de construccion, I thought in
English" (Sp5#03).
As was noticed among Spanish 1 and Spanish 3 groups, there were alsodifferences in strategy use between the two effective students. One effective
(Sp5*02) did not use deduction at all; she had lived in South America as achild and appeared to have greater fluency and automaticity in Spanish as aresult. The other effective, who had not lived in a Spanish-speaking
129III-7Q
country, developed her proficiency in the language through academic study;
deduction represented 30X of her cognitive strategies, as in this example: "I
was thinking fell was callado, but then I thought again and said, well, this is
caer, an ER verb, it has to be caido" (Sp5#03).
Both effective students used elaboration about the same number of times, and
this strategy represented 47X of their cognitive strategy use. Types of
elaboration used included: personal ("I'm looking at the man at the bottom
[of the page) and he seems to be oblivious", Sp5 *03), academic ("Senora uses
that word a lot [enojar, to get angry)", Sp5*02), and related to world
knowledge (when asked how she goes about remembering words, "Well, I
guess I just thought of movement and the word that came to my head was
caminando [walking], and then I thought, well, that's ... that's feet, that's not
a car, and 1 was thinking, then I was going to say driving, but I guess a car
can't drive, a driver has to drive it", Sp5*02). In contrast to the multiple
ways in which effective students elaborated, the less effective student used
elaboration only once.
In conclusion, for this sample of students, elaboration was the strategy that
characterized both effective students, while use of translation was the major
strategy used by the less effective student. One effective student used
deduction a fair amount, but neither of the other two students did.
In looking at the paragraphs produced by each student, the following
differences were found:
111 -79
1
Category Effective Less Effective
Average number ofsentences written
Average number ofwords in paragraph
Average number ofwords in sentence
4 5
59 50
14.8 10
The major difference was that the effective students tended to write longer
sentences and indicated an ability to link ideas through the use of
subordinate clauses. The less effective student used y (and) to link clauses,
whereas the two effective students not only used y, but also used aue (that,
which), porque (because), cuando (when), and si (if).
Readinst and Grammar Close. The doze activity consisted of three paragraphs
comparing the reasons why adolescents left home in the past and why theyleave home today (see Appendix F). Nine blanks appeared in the passage, and
in each of these, students had to write the correct form and tense of theverb indicated in parenthesis in its infinitive form. Since not all student
completed the activity, only the sentences completed by all four students areanalyzed. Appendix G presents a complete listing of the frequency of all
strategies used by the two effective and two less effective Spanish 5 students
for the first six sentences of the doze. Exhibit 111-19 lists the strategieswhich were most frequently used by one or both groups. These strategiesare: selective attention, self-monitoring, self-evaluation, total metacognitive,
translation, deduction, elaboration, and inferencing.
1 1 1 -80
EXHIBIT III 19
Average Frequency and Percent of Strategy Useof Effective and Less Effective Spanish 5 Students
During the CLOZE, Spring 1986
LearningStrategy
Effective(n=2)
N %
Less Effective(n=2)
N %
Metacoanitive Strategies
Selective Attention 2.5 20.8 0.0
Self-monitoring 5.5 45.8 5.0 71.4
Self-evaluation 4.0 33.3 2.0 28.6
Total, Metacognitive 12.0 100.0 7.0 100.0
Cognitive Strategies
Translation 4.5 20,9 9.5 46.3
Deduction/Induction 5.5 25.6 6.5 31.7
Elaboration 7.5 34.9 1.5 7.3
Inferencing 2.5 11.6 0.5 2.4
Other Cognitive 1.5 7.0 2.5 12.2
Total, Cognitive 21.5 100.0 20.5 100.0
Social/Affective Strategies
Questioning for Cter/Verif 0.5 50.0 6.0 100.0
Self-talk 0.5 50.0 0.0
Total, Social/Affective 1.0 100.0 6.0 100.0
TOTAL, ALL STRATEGIES 34.5 33.5
Note: Numbers and percentagei may vary slightly due to rounding.
III -R1132
A comparison with results for Spanish 3 students on a similiar doze task
shows similarities and differences between effective and less effective
students. For example, both Spanish 3 and 5 effective students used moreself-monitoring, self-evaluation, total metacognitive, and elaboration
strategies than did their less effective peers at the two course levels.However, the effective Spanish 5 students used translation and deduction less
than Spanish 5 less effective learners (the opposite was noted among Spanish
3 students). Particular features of the strategies used by Spanish 5 students
are discussed below.
Selective Attention. This strategy was used an average of 2.5 times by
the effective students and not at all by the less effective ones. When using
selective attention, students focused on particular aspects of the textnecessary for comprehension. For example, "That's something you alwayshave to watch out for as you're reading along ... " and "But, urn, I'm looking
at the sentence and I find out it's not really super-important (a word)"(Sp5#03).
Self monitoring. This strategy was used an average of 5.5 times byeffective students and 5.0 times by less effective students. The monitoring by
the effectives was mostly for comprehension (" y ademas era siempre enserio y ademas era siempre en serio that still doesn't make sense tome", Sp54002). The less effective students monitored equally forcomprehension (" ... I have a whole bunch of bits and pieces in my mind asto what it means, but I don't really [know] which one goes to which ... ",Sp5004) and production (student reads "en el serio", then corrects self to"en serio", Sp5#01). Less effective students also monitored their production
III-82
by the sound of the verb form under scrutiny more often than did effective
students ("This hacerse sounds right", Sp5#04) (zigma). The effective
students used self-monitoring to double check the accuracy of prior items in
the exercise ("I was looking at sueter and azules and wondering why azules
was plural, and I looked back [to check what it referred to]", Sp5#02), while
ineffective students did not check back.
Self-evaluation. This strategy was used twice as often by effective
students as by those less effective, for an average of 4 times versus 2 times
respectively. This same difference between use of self-evaluation was found
among Spanish 3 students. The most frequent type of self-evaluation
occurred when students evaluated their comprehension of sentences with
blanks to be filled in ("I guess I did translate there, but it didn't help me,
because it didn't make any more sense", Sp5#02). Evaluation of actual
Production also occurred more frequently among the effective students (2.5,
versus 0.5 times for the ineffectives). The example below shows how an
effective student evaluated her production several times in her search forthe correct verb form:
Student is working on the sentence: " y cuando [eladolescents] tenia una posicion, una mujer, y a veces unoshijos, .......(volver) a la casa de sus padres "
Translation of sentence: ... and when the adolescent had aposition, a wife, and sometimes some children, ._(to return)_to his parents' home ...
Student (recognizing difficulty she often encounters with verbtenses): ... I have an idea that I might be wrong, butthere's no other answer iv my head, so I'll just put down whatI ... it's probably vuelve (present tense - incorrect). I don'tknow, vuelve - se hizo (comparing to the previous verb filledin, which is in the past tense)... oh, I don't know.
Then student: (a) writes volvio (past tense - can be correct,although imperfect preferable), (b) crosses this out and writesin vuelve (present tense incorrect), (c) notices tenia(imperfect) and remarks on the fact that, as tenia has anaccent, it seems to go with volvio rather than vuelve; and (d)crosses out vuelve and writes in volvio again.
What this example illustrates is the effort and persistence in searching for
the right answer which is a characteristic of effective students more often
than of ineffective students, at this level and at beginning and intermediate
levels as well.
Differences in the frequency of use of four coanitive strategies were found
between effective and less effective students for the doze task. Effective
students used glajagrgAn and inferencing more often than did less effective
students, while the latter used translation and deduction more frequentlythan did effective students. A discussion of the ways in which these four
strategies were used follows.
Translation. This strategy was used by effective students less thanhalf as often as by those less effective (an average of 4.5 times for theeffectives, and 9.5 times for ineffectives). The latter group used translation
to go through each sentence of the doze word by word or phrase by phrase,reading in Spanish and then giving the English equivalent. Effective studentsdid this occasionally, but more often merely mentioned when they weretranslating in their heads ("That I had to think about. I think I translatedinto English", Sp5 *02). The impression given in the interviews is that lesseffective students plodded through the exercise translating as they went,
whereas effective students resorted to translation only when they did not
immediately grasp the meaning of the sentence.
Deduction was used, on the average, 5.5 times by effective students
and 6.5 times by less effective students. That is, students stated the rule and
then applied it to find the correct verb form, or used similarities between
verb forms to help find the answer. "Esto ... it's not estos, so it would besingular", Sp5#01). As previously mentioned, however, the nature of thisactivity tends to elicit rule application.
Elaboration. Perhaps the most striking difference between effective
and less effective Spanish 5 students in working the cloze was theirfrequency of use of elaboration. Effective students used this strategy on the
average of 7.5 times, whereas less effective students used it on an average of
only 1.5 times. A further analysis reveals that only one of the less effective
students used elaboration, and that all of his instances were of elaboration
between parts for grammatical information.
(Explaining how he is trying to figure out the verb form):
Well, I look at the other verbs in the sentence, and it's teniaand VIA, so it would be something like whatever that form is,but for hacer. (Sp5*01)
This is a highly unusual form of elaborating between parts, which hasappeared in other student's transcripts as predominately a way of searching
for semantic rather than syntactic information. Thus, not only did theelaborations of the less effective students take an unusual form, but they all
issued from one student; the other made zi elaborations.
I 1 - 85
Effective students, for their part, used a variety of elaborations, such as:
Personal ("I like that!", Sp5*02), academic ("I'm trying to remember the
lesson she gave us on commands", Sp5*03), world knowledge ("I'm relating
back to experiences I've had here and, like ... reading about kids
disappearing, you know, things in English", Sp5*03), between parts of the
text ( "it sounds like in the paragraph before", Sp5 *02).
Inferencina. On the average, inferencing was used during the cloze
activity 2.5 times by effective students and only 0.5 by less effective
study ;, and took a variety of focuses: inferencing for vocabulary ("En el
pazi in the past) I don't really know what that means yet - something
about the past", Sp5*02), for grammatical forms (trying to identify the tense
of the first verb in a sentence in order to write the missing verb in the same
tense, " ... actually, it's probably some kind of tense that I can't figure out,
but it looks (like) present to me", 3p5#03), and for overall meaning (student
indicates that the text is getting at a subtle point, adding " ... something that
has to do with psychology, I assume", Sp5*03).
In conclusion, although both effective and less effective students used about
the same number of cognitive strategies, the particular strategies each group
used most often were quite different. Individual differences between the
ways in which students approached the task were also evident. For
example, translation and deduction were the major strategies used by the
ineffective students, but one of these used mostly translation (62.5X of
cognitive strategies), and proportionately less deduction (16.7X of cognitive
strategies), while the other used more deduction (52.9X of cognitive strategies)
1 1 1 86
than translation (23.5X). In comparing the cognitive strategy use of the two
effective students, the difference appears not so much in the types of
strategies used but rather in the total number. One student used a total of 13
cognitive strategies, while the other had a total of 30. The differences
occurred in their uses of deduction and elaboration, with the latter student
using both much more (deduction: 33.3X of cognitive strategies, versus the
other student's 7.7X; elaboration: 40X, versus the other student's 23.1X).
Social/Affective Strategies in the Cloze Activity. As with students at
lower levels of Spanish instruction, less effective Spanish 5 students used
more social/affective strategies (almost all of which were questions for
clarification and verification) than did more effective students (see Exhibit III-
19). As with other levels, more effective students apparently had less need
than the ineffectives to ask how to proceed or to seek confirmation of an
answer.
111-87 '
C. LONGITUDINAL COMPARISONS WITH SPANISH STUDENTS:Spring 1986 - Spring 1987
In this section of the report, longitudinal comparisons will be made between
how Spanish students performed in Spring 1986 and how they performed one
year later, in Spring 1987. These comparisons will be used to address such
questions as:
(a) How stable does student strategy use remain over time? and
(b) How does strategy use change in conjunction with changes inlanguage proficiency, attitude or other factors?
Before beginning a discussion of how the students performed from one year
to the next, though, the issue of effectiveness and how this categorization of
students held up across time will be addressed. This will be followed by a
brief discussion of how the longitudinal comparisons were made and some
considerations involved in making them. Then, a short clarification of
terminology used in this section will be provided. Finally, the results of the
Spring 86-Spring 87 analysis will be presented.
Effectiveness of Students
Certain changes over time were noted in the effectiveness of students, most
particularly at the lower levels of Spanish study. Interestingly, changes
were most apparent among the effective students. Spanish 1 students
originally designated as ineffective (a) either dropped out of Spanish and were
not available for interview in Spring 1987, or (b) continued with theirlanguage study and remained ineffective. The effective Spanish 1 students,
on the other hand, began to show intra-group differences in performance by
the interview sessions of Spring 1987. This may be because study at this
level is so basic, a student with good study habits and a positive attitude is
111-88 1,3,)
likely to perform well and appear effective in terms of what is expected in
the classroom. But as study becomes more advanced and students are
expected more and more to jnteract with the language and use it in a variety
of ways, the nature of what is effective language learning behavior changes.
Students who might have been effective in Spanish 1 may be less so in
Spanish 2. This was the case with a number of effective students,
particularly those who had not fully or correctly internalized the basics.
Others continued to perform quite well, drawing from the base of language
they had gained in order to work through the tasks given them.
Changes in effectiveness were also apparent among the Spanish 3 students.
Only one ineffective student continued study in Spring 1987 and, in fact,
improved her performance. Of the original eight effective students, six were
available for re-interview. Of these, one (*03) had advanced so rapidly, he
had Jumped to Spanish 5 (his interviews will be examined fully in
subsequent reports). Another was sc bad at thinking aloud, she was not
tortured through another think aloud session. She was, however, asked to
describe briefly how Spanish study was going for her, one year later, and
she replied that she was having more difficulty and that her grade had
slipped. The reason, she felt, was that Spanish 4 contained less "structured"
activities, such as grammar practice, and more "free form" activities where
students were expected to use their Spanish more as a native speaker would,
for learning, conversation and discussion. All of the remaining four effective
students replied in similar ways, noting that the difference in what was
expected of them in the classroom made the language class more difficult.
One student (*11) remarked that because the teacher spent less time on
having them practice new vocabulary or verb tenses, the new material was
not as thoroughly assimilated into working knowledge as what they hadlearned before.
Other factors contributed to several students' impressions of their own
slipping effectiveness. Chief among these was "Senior Slump." As one
student (#11) said, "Senior slump is just... I kind of read stuff and let it go."
Another (*07) complained of having been moved to the back of the room to
accommodate the arrival of a iiew student; the effects of senior slump, not
being able to see as well and feeling isolated from the flow of the class
resulted in this student's lowered motivation and lowered performance. Her
grades, she reported, had fallen from Bs to Cs because she did not feel like
trying. These remarks tend to underscore the importance of attitude in
contributing to achievement.
Not all effectives, though, suffered from senior slump or other attitudinalproblems. Spanish 3 student *05, who could be considered one of the
"exceptional" effectives, was every bit as effective in Spring 1987 as the year
before. In fact, he was so good during the Level 4 listening activity that he
was asked to listen to the Level 6 passage as well. Yet he claims to be "a
science math person" and is not particularly interested in studying language
in college, although he supposes he might take Spanish if he has time. His
approach to the various tasks did not vary depending upon his interest level;
regardless of what he thought, he applied himself fully to each task, showing
that the effects of negative attitude can be substantially mitigated in students
who possess the ability and willingness to concentrate and perform the tasksof "students."
141 1 -90
No Spanish 5 ineffective remained in the study in Spring 1987. The three
effective students did not report finding the language work more difficult
than in the past or feeling the effects of senior slump. All three planned to
take Spanish in college. Thus, it would seem that whether students are
appraised as effective or ineffective language learners may depend as much
on a host of situational variables as on the student's own performance,
strategy use, and native ability to learn a foreign language.
Longitudinal Comparisons: Some Considerations,
The longitudinal comparisons, as mentioned above, will be used to examine (a)
how stable student strategy use remains over time, and (b) how strategy use
changes in conjunction with changes in language proficiency, attitude, or
other factors. Given the amount of data available to address these questions
(i.e., several activities at each level of study for each semester of study) and
the number of ways in which the longitudinal comparisons can be made (i.e.,
group trends versus individual case studies), slices will be made into the data
selectively. For example, one activity might be examined in terms of group
statistics, while another might be used to pursue how students have changed
(or not changed) the way in which they apply a strategy or combination of
strategies. Only the longitudinal performance of effective students will be
examined at this time; subsequent reports will address aspects of the
longitudinal performance of the few ineffective students who remain in the
stilt y.
The think aloud interviews in Spring 1987 were coded for incidence of
learning strategies in the same way that Spring 1986 interviews were coded.
As has been mentioned, analysis of the protocols has not been limited to
1 1 I - 9 1 142
counting how many times a student uses a particular strategy, but also
includes looking at the ways in which strategies are used. In keeping with
this approach, the first step in making the longitudinal comparisons was to
"count numbers" in the Spring 1987 data, then compare those numbers to the
earlier data to see if any large differences emerge. In order to make the
comparisons "equal" in terms of students, new figures were computed for
the Spring 86 data using only those students whose data was used in theSpring 87 analysis. Thus, the longitudinal figures presented in this section
of the report, unless otherwise noted, are calculated on exactly the samestudents. (As an example, the data of seven effective Spanish 3 students
were used to calculate the Spring 86 figures presented earlier in this report.
Four of these effectives were interviewed again in Spring 87. To make the
comparisons on as equivalent a group as possible, the Spring 86 data was re-
computed using data from only those four students.)
One very important consideration in making longitudinal comparisons
between semesters is the nature of the tasks themselves. The activities
given the students in Spring 87 were not designed to be "comparable" to those
given them in Spring 86. Both sets of materials asked the students to listen,
read, and write, but that was the extent of task comparability. For
example, Spanish 3 students listened to a monologue in Spring 86 and anarrative story in Spring 87. Nor was time on task an issue; students were
allowed to work through the tasks more or less at their own pace, so that
individual differences in approach would emerge. The interviewer might
occasionally prod a student who was dallying too much in one place, orsuspend one activity in favor of another to make sure that the studentworked on all activities in the workbook, but generally speaking the student
1 431 1 1-9 2
was encouraged to assume his or her natural style to working in thelanguage. Therefore, comparisons between semesters must be made with
caution, recognizing that aspects to performing the task the first time might
have not been comparable to performing it again, one year later.
Given this caveat, a qualitative examination of how strategy use changes
over time is critical. While numbers address whether a student has
increased or decreased his or her use of inferencing, for example, only
qualitative analysis can reveal whether a student has changed the way in
which the inferencing is done, whether it appears now in combination with
elaboration and self-monitoring or whether it is a guess that goes unchecked.
Therefore, as with other results presented in this report, the numbers of
strategies students used in performing the various tasks will be exhibited
and will be used to fuel the discussion, which will be largely qualitative in
nature.
Terminology Used in This Section
Because two sets of data will be used in this section (Spring 1986 and Spring
1987), as well as three sets of student data (beginning, intermediate and
advanced), the following approach will be used in referring to the various
pieces of data. Rather than make constant reference to Spring 86 or 87, the
semester of data collection will be noted only for emphasis or to ensure
clarity. Instead, the student level will indicate what semester is being
referred to. For example, intermediate level students began the study in
Spanish 3 during Spring 1986. When they were sampled one year later, they
were in Spanish 4 and it was Spring 1987. Therefore, reference to a Spanish
4. student would indicate that the semester being discussed is Spring 1987.
1 A 4
III -93 -1-1'1
Similarly, reference to a Spanish 1 student would indicate Spring 1986, while
Spanish 2 refers to Spring 1987. Spanish 5 will be used with Spring 1986,
and Spanish 6 for Spring 1987. When the groups of students are being
discussed, and semester is not an issue, they will be referred to as Spanish
1/2, 3/4, or 5/6.
Any variations from this approach will be noted specifically. One case, for
example, is the discussion of one of the "exceplional" effectives who began the
study in Spanish 3 and skipped Spanish 4 entirely, so that one year later
(Spring 1987) he was in Spanish 5. Any examples drawn from this student
will be made using his Spring 1986 designation (Sp3*03) and noting which
semester is being referenced.
Spanish 1/2 Longitudinal Results
Two activities at this level of Spanish study were available for longitudinal
comparisons: writing and cloze. The comparisons are approached in
different ways, given the degree of comparability between the tasks across
semesters.
Writing. The data of seven (7) effective students form the basis for Spring
86-87 comparisons of writing in Spanish. Exhibit 111-20 presents the average
number of times these seven students used the various learner strategies
while writing a short paragraph about the pictures presented to them. The
Spring 86 picture was of a family tree (see Appendix C); Spring 87's depicted a
crowded hotel lobby (see Appendix H).
I I I -9 4
51111111111r 111- 20BEST COPY AVAILABLELo ngitudinal emporia of Avers ra ad. Fming Pero* of s*Sir Use
K Effect*, %giro* Leval *antis Students DuringWRITING ACTIVITY,
Sprig 1986 - Spring 1987
Lean*Strategy
Spring 1986Sp 1 Effeetives*
(nIff7)N
Spring 1987Sp 2 Motives*
0017)
METACOGNITIVE
ElwinPluming 4.0 37.3 6.4 292Selsetive Attention 0.0 0.0 0.7 3.3
Selfeweagoemet 0.6 5.3 1.7 7.8
Subtotal, Plannirq 4.6 42.7 8.9 40.3
MoedaSelf-ineMtering 4.1 38.7 8.0 36.4
Exabidim
Selt-evaluatisn 2.0 18.7 5.1 23.4
TOTAL, METACOONITIVE 10.7 100.0 22.0 100.0
COWIE STRATEOES
&petition 0.3 2.5 1.0 3.6
Nessureirq 0.1 1.3 1.3 44Translation 3.3 29.1 9.4 33.7
Orr.* 0.4 3.8 0.9 3.1
Note-taking 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.0
Deastion/brbotion 1.0 8.9 2.4 8.7
alostNettle 1.0 83 1.7 6.1
IsallorV 0.7 6.3 0.9 3.1
Elaboration 3.6 31.6 7.4 26.5
Trawler 0.4 3.8 1.1 4.1
Wareistag 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.0
Swaturicieg 0.4 3.8 1.0 3.6
MK, COONITNE 11.3 100.0 28.0 1009
AFFECTIVE STRATEGES**
&Intim far Clar. 5.0 100.0 546 100.0
TOTAL, ALL STNATE0151 27.0 55.6
NOTE: Illadmrs and pereestagss snag vary ellyttly dee Is reeding.I -9 5Flpres relit Is Ito MI T SWIMS, SEWN Is tgr14116 am/ agate it liprbg 87.
IF* leeist Westin strategies of seeporatlen and selMa& are net inebled bore; the Sink aimfaisrvires did Mt elk* else stratsgNs.
What is immediately apparent from the two sets of numbers is that the
frequency of strategies used in Spring 87 is double that of the previous year
(an average of 55.6, as compared with 27.0). Moreover, every strategy
shows an increase in usage, suggesting that as the students' proficiency in
the language increased, so did either their strategy repertoire or their need
to use strategies to accomplish the task. Yet students did not increase the
amount they wrote in Spring 87, as the chart below indicates:
Category Spring 86 Spring 87
Average number 3.9 3.9of sentences written
Average number of 23.0 23.4words in paragraph
Average number of 6.0 6.1words in a sentence
Given that students did not change how much they wrote, how did they
change how they wrote? Looking broadly at Exhibit 111-20, student
metacognitive strategy use shows a balanced increase from one semester to
the other for the subcategories of planning, monitoring and evaluating, while
the changes in cognitive strategy use appear to be largest for particularstrategies (resourcine, translation, and elaboration). Looking closely,
however, at the way in which each student attacked the writing task inSpring 86, as compared with their performance in Spring 87, the importance
of attitude in determining how a task is completed can be seen, as well as
how the effectiveness of students is open to change. For example, in Spring
86 one of the most effective students (#16) raced through the writing without
apparent difficulty, producing three sentences describing the family tree.
One year later and suffering from senior slump, she takes so much time to
III -9A
I
write two sentences that the period runs out before she can even glance at
the next activity, the cloze. She is aware of dallying ("I'd better start
writing something") but makes no effort to correct her aimlessness. The two
sentences she actually does write (and the many she thinks about writing)
show she is conscious that, according to the dictates of writing style, her
paragraph should not be isolated sentences describing the picture but, rather,
a series of sentences that fit together to tell a story. Her lack of motivation,
however, is what ultimately drives her planning and subsequent writing.
Spring 87
(after examining the picture but before writing):Pm gonna have to start writing, I guess. . . Do I have to havethis, like, structured or can I just write sentences about whatthe people are doing? I'd rather write sentences but do theywant me to write ...something structured and all thatbusiness, which is more effort.
(after having written the first sentence):Pm just looking for any word that stands out that I know inSpanish that I can write about. Because then I was thinkingthat maybe I could ... have him tell her about all the crazythings going on in the airport - and then it would bestructured. (#16)
Rather than begin by planning the structure she knows her paragraph
should have, she stumbles into satisfying this writing "tenet." In this way,
her effectiveness as a student is not seriously impaired on the surface, but
the many strategies she uses while wandering through the picture do not
advance her through the writing activity in an efficient manner. Her Spring
87 performance clearly shows that the use of strategies does not necessarily
result in an improved product, particularly if the student is not interested in
or focused upon what he or she is producing.
One student showed a marked change in how swiftly and smoothly he wrote.
He had spent his spring break in the Dominican Republic, which appeared to
result in increased confidence, as is seen in the example below.
(Spring 86, having written "Mi papa tiene..."):How do you spell trein-te, I think... (Int: Treinta?) Yeah.Treinta six, treinta six, something like that. (Int: Why 36?)Well, he doesn't look that old, but I thought it would be tooyoung, if I put him much younger.
(Spring 87):There are muchas personas en la pictura. I don't know ifthat's a word or not. (Int: What made you pick pictura?) Itsounds like it could be something. (4009)
In Spring 87, this student does not ask the interviewer for information; he
generates his own word (pictura), no doubt drawing from English (transfer
and inference) and the way the word sounds. That he was sensitive to
sound is evident in the Spring 86 example, for he changes his pronunciation
of "treinta" following the interviewer's use of it, but in that semester he
worked much more slowly, thinking of things to say in English first, then
seeing if he knew the Spanish. One year and one trip later he is able to
generate large fragments I-1 his sentences in Spanish and claims to bethinking mostly in Spanish.
In contrast to this one student, most others reported thinking largely in
English and then finding the Spanish they needed. This is very similar to the
approach they used the year before. And while most students used many
more strategies in Spring 87 to create their paragraphs, the results tended to
be similar to the products of their previous writing: a series of sentences
describing the picture but which do not tell a story and at best are loosely
Joined by a topic sentence such as "There are many people in the room."
What seems to account for the dramatic increase in strategy use for writing,
then, is that students, having grown in proficiency, have more options about
what they can say. Because they generate more ideas, they confront more
decision points and have to use more strategies in order to complete their
plans. An example of this is presented in Exhibit 111-21, which contrasts a
segment of a student's Spring 86 think aloud, where two sentences are
produced, with a segment of the same student's think aloud one year later,
where one sentence is produced.
Both excerpts commence as the student begins the task. Obviously, she
devotes more time in Spring 87 to examining the picture and deciding what
she wants to write, whereas in the previous session she jumped into the
task with no preliminaries. Further, her Spring 87 plans are driven by her
decision nal to look words up in the dictionary; what she cannot say without
resourcing, she abandons, substituting something she knows how to say or
can guess. Woi ..;ing within what she knows requires her to be flexible in
planning her sentences, but since she knows more than she did the previous
spring, she can pick and choose the message she wants to convey, rather
than be limited strictly to the basics. Yet, despite this evident increase in
proficiency, her sentences in Spring 87 are disconnected from each other, and
the resulting paragraph is no more cohesive than what she wrote in Spring
86. Apparently, her writing is still constrained by her limited vocabulary or
her unwillingness or inability to produce a well-integrated story.
What remains consistent in this student's performance across semesters is
her tendency to monitor as she goes along, correcting mistakes and doubting
her tenses, and her use of the French she has taken (transfer). This latter
1 1 1 -99 I :3 .)
EXHIBIT 111- 21Excerpts of One Effective Student's Writing in Spring 86 and Spring a?
Spring 56: Sentence 1 & 2 Result: Ills padres son Clara Gonzalez y Carlos(St15) 6cemilsz. Ili prima Teresa esta bonito.
....4St: c0.1.1y perents..xni padre...eare....pn. this is what hate. because I can never 6.1viznali brotz4,-)
t? fp 0.) fr 070
Mt: Why do you pick per? c)6114c.-01,Nwi-4.-44.
remember whether to use sitar or. uh, sir. So 111 just use sir, I guess.
ISt: ot)(because that's for things that are permanent. pay. wait. My parents are Clara e)6;jomvvto-vi.:LAXI-to'V
Gonzalez and Carla Gonzalez. Okay... urn... I already did all the..( 11 do ones that 4 ''^" GilikA414-)N4%
they had on the other page? zo.)Q Ckii.A.->
I 1:f (II-)Inc: No.
Int.: What are you thinking? i(c,ck)T3"441-dr-4-b.N)czt.AtgaCC- -)
St: Urn, okay. (writIng)t My... cousln...Teresa...is...(writes as and pauses)
St: k That that's for to and not for Ills, andzQf I add a T. thes like French... &outlaws I t,e)avo IS 'z
(vi,)1:1e44°ktit-tibid/C7(fsek(.1/4)44;(C...)
get my French and Spanish confused. Out. urn. let's se*. it goes 'soy, es..." 111
put T cos I know that's how you say it in French. Ill sometimes do that when him not Psure of how to do it in Spanish. Ill just write it in FrenchAls...um. pretty. (writes
it. i,) -vvtovvit (bonitahtlevbe... oh that's_ is that it? Wait. (corrects 'at' to read 'este) C'f' cw Cad
Int: .Esti instead of est?
st: kkto well. I can't remember that point too well.
4) -..t.A.ro-t.
Spring 1907: Sentence 1 Result: El hombre llama su wow si aeroport.
iSt: (beginning) gst I'm thinking what this is and vwhin they are. Wmb
trying to think of
the activity that I know the most about, so I can write about it, so I don't have to look
/ords up cos its a pin\(There is this guy on the taisphone. and I'm looking at the 6:0
Livas thinking If I know dog and Idottutilyi trying to pick the thing thst's
the easiest
!don't knowthsultcase or illItdown. Butli"nthit: I dot:ftdpknL'I if I know hthoewslito say. Ito,Inillsny werdsorslur:41w" .Idifthkii.("1121 doPsinithectypy"freonthe (Int:phonedthethou%wer.1"18homtra.
dent know
("Cells his wife...(rm thinking if I should say to tall her... %To tell. deciribtl. thet7,pain
)ktet ore you thinking?
St: &nostrying
was
to
thirkUnlif:4176d. tim.(irnes"P°70"Pm.crivc'tskto
because I don't know how to do that. the Indirect, the arid. pronoun's ?en. I don%really know how to do that with irdinitives.01 mike it in the airport.11 don't know
how to say 'at the airport' in Spanish. Smoothing like that. (writes Nereporja
151 stint:: Ceps. It is. I do It all the Lurunkss.7.ati Fthsm cceltised. all the Urne.rcerrecto to loroPort)
I I I - 10 0,
a) (,uw 0 va.61400
12) 6etahut(nut (tow*ese.)
imavutcAm.kc)cPLcva) -,thi.t.A0)e) -wIttkivevAA-k).1)14A 1310,4, vo
5-.tArik10 4Aritt.V.0 elet49 Luna,
PM ?IAA CALA)
#4' 1710-K (E71--yk)5 -motet (krod)
Caca.
Ai) Ca)S-rvtOwti
ti-)Su-sfipmailf;,/°) CK)
ere CWTiti) eta (42e-riAmAs)
5-kuti.)05-Amtt trio) 1,1kyikroltd.c4,-
strategy is not particularly helpful to her, although it permits her to find an
approximate of the word she needs and thus move along in her writing.
Using "l'aeroport", however, in Spring 87 was not a deliberate transfer.
upon questioning, she admits that when she wrote the word, she was
unaware that she was writing French.
All students showed a similar consistency in using certain strategies. The
student in the above example monitored on line, not after the fact, and
recoursed to her French; another student (*01) relied upon imagery and
auditory self-monitoring in both semesters to recall information; two others
(*10 and *13) Planned only at the sentence level, then translated, often
moving word bi- word. These findings support the emerging awareness that
students vary greatly from each other in what strategies they use and how
they use them. While most students make use of most of the strategies in
the course of these think alouds and while strategies such as elaboration,
self-monitoring, and deduction could be considered core strategies in each
student's repertoire, certain of the strategies are used as a matter ofpersonal style and choice and reflect that student's individual approach. The
use of these strategies seems relatively stable across time.
Another question to be addressed concerns the core strategies students use
while writing: did the manner in which these students applied planning,
self monitoring, translation, and elaboration undergo a change as their
proficiency increased? These strategies are examined closely in the next
pages.
Planning. Spring 87 writing think alouds saw these seven effective
students making more Plans about what they were going to write than in
the previous year (an average of 6.4, as compared with 4.0, respectively). As
has been mentioned, this is likely due to increases in their proficiency which
allow them to consider a wider range of sentences to write. But planning
can be at the discourse, sentence or phrase level, be directed at the process of
writing, not the product ( planning to compose), be general and move later to
the specific, or involve taking a broad look at the overall organization of the
task at hand (formerly the category of advance organizer). Comparing the
types of plans that students made in Spring 86 with those of Spring 87
indicates that a small shift is taking place in the size of the language chunk
students are focusing upon in their plans:
Type of PlanRaw CountSpring 86
Raw CountSpring 87
Discourse 2 2General 9 12Sentence-level 13 18Phrase-level 1 7to Compose 1 2Other 2 4Raw Total, Planning 28 45Average (n=7) 4.0 6.4
While students are still focusing predominately upon planning at the sentence
level, they are beginning to plan also at the phrase level. This can be seen in
the Spring 87 excerpt in Exhibit 111-21 when the student in question plans the
first part of her sentence (I'm trying to think if I should say calls his wife"),
writes this fragment and corrects it, before moving on to planning the second
half ("I'm thinking if I should say to tell her"), only to have to substitute
when this plan presents her with difficulties ("I don't know how to do that"
so "I'll make it in the airport"). Planning at the phrase level is not an
III-102
unusual approach to writing even when writing in the native language. By
"partitioning the problem," the writer is able to devote attention to one aspect
of the problem at a time and, thus, is able to handle the many constraints of
the writing process (Flower and Hayes, 1980). This appears to be what the
student has done. Such a shift in focus indicates that students are perhaps
begiighlarbe able to approach writing in Spanish with some of the same
strategies they use when writing in English, and that the increases in their
proficiency allow them the confidence to not have to plan the entire sentence
and check their Spanish vocabulary before putting pen to paper.
Self-monitoring. Like planning, self-monitoring can assume a variety
of forms. Comparing the way in which students monitored what they were
writing in Spring 86 with their monitoring one year later indicates that
students not only increased their use of this strategy over time, but also_
changed the focus of their monitoring.
Type ofSelf-Monitor
Raw Count Raw CountSpring 86 Spring 87
Comprehensibility 13 37Double Check 0 3Production 14 8Style 1 0Auditory/Visual 1 8Raw Total, Self-monitor 29 56Average (n=7) 4.1 8.0
In the year between data collection points, students appear to have become
more concerned with how much sense their writing is making (monitoring
for comprehensibility) and somewhat less concerned with whether the words
are spelled correctly (monitoring for production).
(Spring 86):Esposo de Susana Gonzalez. (laughs as she corrects spelling ofGonzalez) I feel retarded. (Spl *03)
(Spring 87):El hombre se llama, I mean... I'm trying to remember how tosay "to speak." I'm thinking of name. Because I know...meilamo, I know llamo, but it doesn't seem like it's going to beright for speaking. (Sp2*03)
This shift in concern is most likely a function of knowing more Spanish
rather than of developing careless habits. In Spring 87, in addition to having
to attend to spelling and accents, students now know enough of the language
to be aware of nuances of meaning for some words, as in the student's
wondering whether "llamar" is appropriately used when referring to
"speaking."
Students are also more inclined in Spring 87 to make use of their "ear" or"eye" to make decisions (auditory/visual self - monitoring), which suggests that
they are developing a sense of how Spanish sounds and/or looks, as in the
following example drawn from a Spring 87 think aloud:
St: I was looking at this guy who fell. And ... I was thinking tohit, but that's like ... when you're saying someone hits, likea car-crash, what's the word for that? Chocat- chocatoor something like that. C-h-o-c I think it's "t", I can'tremember. I'll just say the guy falls. And I was thinkingin the book, in Lesson 5, we were talking about what peopledo, casarse c-
Int: Casarse.St: ... c-a-s-e-r Casars- (sounding it out under breath)Int: C-a- you're writing it at the bottom of the page. Why?St: Because I was looking in the book. I was trying to
remember how It looks when its written down.Int: So you came up with it. Ahh. Mow you write caerse.St: Yeah, that's it. To fall. (Sp2*01)
I ct,.)
I I - I 0 if
This student appears to have grouped the "c" words together in her mind and
has to decide whether "to fall" is chocar, casarse, or caerse. In searching
for the word she wants (caerse), she uses both auditory and visual self-
monitoring (as well as academic elaboration and note-taking), and is
ultimately successful.
Elaboration. Students used roughly double the number of elaborations
in the Spring 87 writing activity as they had the year before (7.4 in Spring
87, as opposed to 3.6 in Spring 86), with the elaborations being of the following
types:
Type Raw Count Raw CountElaboration Spring 86 Spring 87
Personal 0 12Academic 8 14World 1 1
Between Parts 1 4Creative 12 13with Self-evaluation 3 5Other 0 3Raw Total, Elaborations 25 52Average (n=7) 3.6 7.4
Obviously, the most dramatic change is that students are offering more
personal elaborations in the Spring of 87. These elaborations also tend to be
negative in tone, such as "that's a pain because I don't know how to do that"
(#15) and "I should know what dog is called but I can't remember. I feel
dumb now cos I use it all the time" (#03) and the voice of alarm in
discovering a problem, "Uh-oh" (#13). This finding may be an artifact of the
interview situation itself; in Spring 87 the interviewer is now familiar to
them, and they may feel more comfortable with expressing their affective
reaction to what is happening at the moment. It is interesting to note that,
while students increased their use of most other types of elaboration
1 1 1 - 1 0 5
153
I
(academic, between parts, self-evaluative, and other), the number ofcreative and world elaborations stays virtually the same. Students barely
make reference in either semester to knowledge they have gained from the
world, and seem to rely most heavily and consistently upon their own
creativity.
(Spring 86, examining the picture of the family tree):Pedro es ... what about Pedro? Pedro is ugly! No. No, no,Sergio is the definitely the one that's the losert Okay!
(Spring 87, examining the picture of the hotel lobby):So... I guess I'll write on this little guy. Senor Martinez.Okay, that's him. (Writes this invented name next to thefigure of the man on the phone) (4013)
Thus, it would appear as if small changes did take place in the way that
students at this beginning level of Spanish study went about writing their
paragraphs in Spring 87, as contrasted with the year before. Although they
are still planning what they want to say predominately at the sentence level,
there are signs that clans are also being made at the phrase level, which
approximates more how writing is done in the native language. Further,
they devote more attention in Spring 87 to monitoring the sense of what they
are saying than the superficial aspects of spelling or accent marks, and are
beginning to develop and use their "ear" and "eye" for making decisions.
Although these changes are small, they would seem to indicate that increases
in proficiency subtly shift the way in which certain strategies are used.
Reading and Grammar Cloze. The reading/grammar cloze was the last
activity in both semesters' think aloud sessions, and not all Spanish 1/2
students were able to complete it. Thus, the number of students available
for Spring 86-87 comparisons is five (4,04, *09, *15, *15, and *17).
111-106
Spring 86 doze dealt with Juan's typical day, while Spring 87 doze was
entitled "Teresa Pimentel, Medica (Teresa Pimentel, doctor). Quantitative
comparisons of how many and which strategies students used to read both
doze passages are not appropriate, because the two stories and the tasks
presented to the students with each are not comparable. For example, the
Spring 86 doze contained nine blanks (4 nouns and 5 verbs), and the Spring
87 doze contained nineteen (5 nouns, 2 verbs, 12 other forms of speech).
Therefore, one sentence in each doze will be examined to see how students
went about reading and understanding it, then filling in the blank. Each
sentence contains words or phrases that the students were not expected to
know; the Spring 87 sentence contains two blanks and is longer than the
Spring 86 sentence being examined. The sentences are:
Swine 86:A las tres de la tarde regresamos juntas a la (car;a,,(At three in the afternoon we go back together to the _.....(house) .
aprint 87:Pasa mucho tiempo __(con)._ sus pacientes, explicandolessus problemas medicos y contestando preguntas.(She spends a lot of time her patients, explaining theirproblems to them and answering their questions.)
In Spring 86, four of the five students correctly filled in the blank with
"casa" (the fifth student skipped it). In Spring 87 all five students correctly
filled in "con," some quite automatically, and three filled in the next blank
with an acceptable "las" (the), although "sus" (their) is a more correct
response. The strategies these students used most frequently while working
with each sentence were, in order:
Spring 86 Spring 87
Translation (10)Inferencing (8)Questions for Clar/Verif (7)
Translation ---- (21)Self-monitor --- (21)Inferencing (9)
1 1 1 -107
153
Self-monitoring (5)Transfer ----- (4)Elaboration -- (4)Resourcing ---.(4)
Elaboration (8)Questions for Clar/Verif (7)Transfer (6)Deduction (4)
This rank ordering indicates that students used the same core of strategies tosolve the two sentences, although the relative weight they gave to eachstrategy shifted a bit (i.e., self-monitoring became more frequent in theSpring 87 task). Closer examination of the strategies by their subcategories(e.g., academic versus world elaboration) showed little difference in usebetween semesters, however, nor was there any detectable shift in strategycombinations. In both semesters, for example, students tended to useinferencing with transfer to guess at meanings of words (" explicandoles,explaining? EXP, E-x-p-l- ", Sp2#13), and self-monitoring with deduction("Oh now I get it, this is the present progressive, -ANDO ... ", Sp2#15). If anychange can be seen, it is with one individual in particular, not the group as awhole, and appears to relate back to the issue of emerging effectivenessraised earlier in this section.
The student in question (#17) used nearly the same number of uniquestrategies in solving the Spring 87 sentence (9 different strategies, as opposedto 8 for the Spring 86 sentence) but increased the variety of ways in whichshe used the strategies. For example, in the first think aloud session shemonitored once, for comprehension; in the Spring 87 session, she monitoredfor comprehension and also for production and her own strategy use.Excerpts from each semester's think aloud are provided in Exhibit III-22 asexamples of this student's approach to figuring out what she does not know.
PUNT III - 2 2Excerpts from One "Exceptional* Effective Student's Cioze Think Aloud
in Spring 86 and Spring 87
Spring 66 (A las tres de le Lards, regresamos judos a Is __(case)--.)
St: A las tree de la tale regrisinos&nl know that word (laughs). juntas a la. okay.Alas
kuLthree of the tar* oh, taiAgmtgauftimm. so that's gonna be at three in
the afternoon. &on% know that word, better took it up.
Int: (observing) Regresamos.
St: Well. I don't have it (in the dictionary), return. I think it means the verb return.
Int: Why do you think that?
St:
o'clodtBscausturn juntas a i ..1 look up juntos. (Looks it up In dictionary) Oh.
together. We return to.guess they started out (unintelligible) case, I suppose, a la
case. (Fills in case)
etc., etc. Q..° at three
Spring 87 (Pass mucho tiempo --(con).-. sus pedant's, explicindoles sus problems medicos ycontestando (sus).- primates.
St: Lea. I think that is spend. because I just remembered poser vacaciones. S. spends
much time, I was gonna put can (writes this in). con sus pacientes. explicindoles sus
problemes(medicas - medicos y wanton° daaatIons., 6Tends time with her
patients explaining medical problems and maybe answering questiorn) gnot rosily
sure though. cos this contestando, Ism never seen that before with the ending like that.
-Indies, so I don't know if that's a verb, but I'm just guessing that it is something Mit
I just haven't come across yet. bCel-ause it mites sense.
Int: How did you figure out explicindoles? You just said you'd never seen that kind of an
ending before.
St: Oilust looked st the of that, explaining. I was going to look it up. dietsthrough to find that word there. 1can tell. I mean, as it is.
(pause) ls j s explain milli just guess tigt that meaning is parallel to -Iry
ending in English.(And this is too, contestando. just that they are both different,
and I meld expect them to have the same ending, that's why it's kind of strove...1P
enswerine)I think Iln just going to put 'any - I don't know
what contester morn. and that would help. (dictionary) Answer, yeah. 1
had (Wed that out because of questions I dont know how to say °any.° 111 just
say les, because I cant remember and I Mint that is correct. I mean. sywroosticsilY)
(writes ler in second blank)
l'AvAsce C)12)-(c Ln-)c-)-vvItytt-r (rya)di)vb.4
e)6-wwwttvNl't.e4A-cki
04--movvZitwh44-etAtz,114.4(SZesov-vavvx
C V))-trvtrYvt'iri
(451046.014)lwArt 1A44-4.44.94,.. 6-4)
livecietww/fettmged L)
klt) 6107 ()-bittryli.tt7(
rt,)eff (n5-4Artit
)LW)
(17)
1 11-1 0 ",1
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
i:)6.-ars.LCIA))6 u..WhitAkionS-61044114
In both semesters' think alouds, the student relies upon using the dictionary
(resourcing and translation) and transferring from English and Spanish to
infer meanings of unknown words. Clearly looking words up is a habit she
has; she is also very efficient in doing so, finding the word quickly, then
jumping back to reading. What seems to distinguish her performance from
the others, in addition to the thoroughness she shows, is her flexthility in
calling up what she knows and using it and her metalinguistic awareness.
She is the only one of the five effectives who figured out the meaning of "tres
de la tarde" (Spring 86) by transferring from "buenas tardes" (good
afternoon). The others thought of being late (another meaning of tarde) and
had to work their way around to the proper meaning. In Spring 87, she
confronts "explicandoloes" and "contestando" by analyzing what the "-ando"
might mean, but has misgiviags about her analysis (self- monitoring) because
of expectations she formed ("it's just that they are both different and Iwould expect them to have the same ending"). But the sense of the sentence,
within the context of the paragraph, is what ultimately guides herinferencing ("I'm just guessing that it is something that I just haven't come
across yet, because it makes sense"). She uses the dictionary, unnecessarily,
to confirm her assumptions.
In this case, effectiveness seems to be determined by equal parts intuition,
cleverness, and persistence. The student is not the only one to generate the
correct answers to these doze sentences, but her mind seems to be the one
most versatile in reviewing incoming information and fitting it in with whatshe already knows.
In summary, then, the reading and grammar dime did not reveal much
change in strategy use over time. All students used basically the same
strategies to arrive -at their answers, and the answers were, for the most
part, correct. As with the writing activity, these data tend to indicate that
certain strategies go with certain tasks, and that students have their own
styles that may influence whether they use a particular strategy or not (i.e.,
resourcins0. Degrees of effectiveness, though, can be seen in the students in
the amount of effort they invest in the task, in how efficiently they arrive
at their solutions and, ultimately, in how complete their understanding of the
- reading passage is.
Spanish 3/4 Longitudinal Results
Three activities are available at this level of Spanish study for longitudinal
comparisons: listening, writing, and doze. As was mentioned earlier in this
section, the data of four effective students form the basis of Spring 86-87
comparisons. Of the three other students deemed effective in the original
Spanish 3 sample, one graduated (#06), one dropped Spanish study (#09), and
one skipped to Spanish 5 (*03).
Listening. Exhibit 111-23 presents the average number of times the four
effective students used the various learner strategies while listening during
the think aloud sessions of Spring 86 and 87. Spring 86 listening consisted of
a monologue about a Bolivian miner (see Appendix D), while Spring 87
presented a narrative story about an old man who rides the streetcar with a
pipe in his mouth (see Appendix H). The latter passage was longer than the
former; it also contained six pauses for the student to think aloud, while the
miner's monologue only contained four. Therefore, it might be expected that
162
0111111111T 1 I I - 23 BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Average fragrancy and Percent of Stake Use of Effective Spanish 3/4 St dells DuringLISTENING ACTNITY,
Spring 1906 - Spring 1907
LearningStrait/9i
Sprig 1986Sp 3 Effeettves*
004)N IS
Spring 1987Sp 4 Effeetives*
(n4)N 5
MET#COONITNE
BoasKw* 0.3 2.4 0.3 1.7
Directed Attention 0.8 7.1 0.8 52&both, Attention 4.3 40.5 1.3 8.6Selfinenageenent 0.5 4.8 0.8 52*Metal, Planning 5.8 54.8 3.0 20.7
MaasSalt-nesnitoring 4.0 38.1 9.3 63.8
Sep-orabestion 028 7.1 3.0 20.7TOTAL, METACOON1TNE 10.5 100.0 14.5 100.0
COONITNE STRATEGIES
Repetition 0.5 3.4 OA 3.0Translates 0.5 3.4 2.5 9.9Grouping 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1
Note-teldni 5.3 362 0.0 0.0Dednotissainduction 0.0 0.0 1.0 4D
imaPrV 1.0 6.9 1.0 4DMabry Ropraontation 0.3 1.7 0.0 0.0Elaboratien 3.5 24.1 8.3 32.7Truster 05 3.4 33 12.9Worm* 2.3 172 5B 19.8Sosonsricing 03 3.4 3.3 12.9
TOTAL, COONITME 143 100.0 253 100.0
SOCK AFFECTIVE STRATEOES**
GAON for 1.0 100B 2.8 100.0
TOTAL, ALL STRATI:0ES 26.0 423
NOTE: Ituniors and ponist000s nevi van slight!. ale torow*** nem Mato ts um 4 students, sonpled 8,14 eel apart to Spring R.
**INN Was*" strategies of essperstisn and solf-talkare not WeMl hen; the *Mc aloudthirvisys4111 Mt sibit lbw sirstsgiss.
1 1 1 - 1 1 2
students would report using more strategies for listening to the story of the
old man. As Exhibit 111-23 shows, this is indeed the case (an average total of
42.5 strategies in Spring 87, compared with 26.0 the year before).
However, the pattern of strategy use is different. In terms of meta-cognitive strategy use, students planned more and monitored and evaluated
less in Spring 86 than in the following year. Several factors may be behind
this changed performance. For one, the design of the workbook was
purposefully different. In Spring 86, the page introducing the listening
activity contained instructions, a brief statement about the listening topic,
and a list of four questions. The introductory page in the following year's
workbook presented instructions, a statement of the topic, and the sentence
"You will asked to answer the questions on the following page." Of interest
here was whether students would take the initiative to look at the questions
before listening, if questions were not directly in front of them.
Unfortunately, none did. The effect, then, of listing questions in the clear
sight of the students is to increase the likelihood of them using the questions
before listening to hypothesize about what they might hear and to plan tolisten for specific words, phrases, or ideas (selective attention). In theabsence of the questions, students were able to plan less before listening and,
by default, had to monitor more while listening. It may also be that thefour students performed this way in Spring 87 because they felt morecomfortable with listening to Spanish one year later and perceived less need
to plan ahead for the activity.
The four effective students reported using more cognitive strategies in the
Spring 87 listening task, most particularly: elaboration, transfer, and
111-113 1
summarizing. While these increases may be due in part to the greater
length of the later passage, they may also represent a subtle shift in listening
approach. For example, the use of elaboration, when examined by sub-
categories, looks as follows:
Type of Raw Count Raw CountElaboration Spring 1986 Spring 1987
Personal 2 11Academic 4 8World 0 4Between Parts 5 4with Self-evaluation 1 4Other 2 2Raw Total, Elaborations 14 33Average (n=-4) 3.5 8.3
In Spring 87 listening, students offered more personal elaborations, finding
the story "kinda silly" (4,07), or expressing surprise at how it proceeded
(#05), curiosity about what a particular word might mean (#11), or judgment
about the story's sense ("that's a better ending", #01). Being familiar with
the interviewer and the interview situation may have contributed to this
greater offering of personal impressions in the Spring 87 think alouds.
Further, the Spring 87 passage was a story told with dramatic emphasis,
while the monologue of the earlier semester was dry and serious; thisdifference in tone may be in part responsible for the more personal reaction
of the students.
In Spring 87, the four effectives also reported elaborating more to their
academiQ and word, knowledge while listening, and appeared to analyze the
narrative both for its story grammar and for its specific language, a type of
awareness not evident in the prior think alouds. "It's so wordy," says one
student ( *07); she also notes that the main character "doesn't have a name,
1 1 1 - 1 114
they just call him el viejo (the old man)." She finds the story "like one of
those 'see Jane run' kinda things. Jane said, he asked..." and says that the
back-and-forth repetitive dialogue between the old man and the conductor
makes the story easier to comprehend. The main difficulty the studentsseemed to have had in understanding was keeping track of who wasspeaking, since both parts are read by the narrator ("it's the sort of thingthat gets screwed up in English, so sometimes you don't remember the order
of conversation", *05). Again, though, the fact that the passage was a storymay be responsible for the students referring to such world-basedknowledge; the miner's monologue may not be the type of passage thatactivates a listener's "story" expectations and schema.
The Spring 87 increase in transfer is mainly due to one student's (*II) heavyuse of this strategy. Interestingly, this student is one of the effectives who
reported having more difficulty in Spanish 4. He appears to understand the
passage fairly well, but has to work harder at it than in his previous thinkaloud, often analyzing single words, something he had not done in the Spring
86 session. He is the only one of the four who spent a significant amount of
time contemplating the list of vocabulary words before listening to thepassage, transferring from English and Spanish alike to glean some sense of
what the words might mean.
(Before listening) Detiene. Detain? Kind of looks likedetain. To hold, tener.
(After listening) I came to detiene and even though I justsaid what I thought it meant, it kind of threw me, cos Ihadn't heard it before, and then I kind of lost a little bit inthat section, but then I got back on track. I think I didtry and think about what it meant, and then I said, ohwell, I just said what it meant. I just said, forget it and... try and get back with it so I don't lose the rest.
On one hand, this student is processing from the bottom up, analyzing at a
very low level in order to comprehend. On the other hand, he is also using
whatever linguistic knowledge he has available to help himself understand,
as in "something retirar. Tirar, to throw, retirar, maybe go away or recede
or something along that line. "Re-" - to do it again, or to return, to go back.
He's gonna go away...". First, he refers to his Spanish knowledge(tirar=throw) to infer the meaning of retirar, then transfers from Latinregarding the prefix "re-" and arrives at more or less the meaning of theverb. So it would seem that he has increased his use of strategies to offset
his newfound difficulties with the language.
The greater use of summarization in Spring 87 is linked to the increases in
self-monitoring, since the two strategies are often used in conjunction witheach other. "It just kept coming through my mind that he's insisting thathe's not smoking" is an example of the strategy appearing alone (#11), but
"I'm sure that was a joke. Just because of the way she was saying it. And
I can't quite get it" shows the same student trying to make sense of the story
(self-monitoring) and summarizing the piece he managed to understand. Also,
the students appeared to have greater difficulty understanding the story ofthe old man, perhaps causing them to resort to summarizing as a means ofdefining what made sense and what had escaped them. This would seem to
reinforce the finding that students tend to use strategies only when there isneed.
In contrast to the four students' increased use of certain strategies, there
was a drastic fall-off in note - taking. In the first data collection session
students were meticulous about Jotting down the answers to the questions as
they heard them. Not one student took notes during the story of the old
man. It is difficult to tell if this is because the questions were not listed
before them or because their "stake" in the task was not sufficient to
motivate them to note-taking.
In conclusion, then, these four students appear to have altered certain
aspects of their strategy use for listening in the year between datacollections. Metacognitively, they came to plan less and monitor more; the
pattern of their cognitive strategy use is somewhat different as well.
Elaboration and summarization appear more frequently in the Spring 87
think alouds, note-taking not at all. These data make the link between
note-taking and selective attention clear, as well as the desirability of putting
questions directly in front of the students to spur use of this strategycombination. In many regards the students give the impression of having
become a bit more lazy in Spanish 4, preferring to ride along and take what
comes rather than to be rigorous and methodical. Senior slump and
familiarity with the interview situation may play parts in their morerelaxed attitude, but the shift in strategy use may also be linked to the
differing nature of the listening passage and, at times, the difficulties two
students in particular (4007 and *11) reported having in Spanish 4 class.
Overall, though, it can be seen that the students retained use of several core
strategies for listening in Spring 87 that they had used previously, showing
that certain strategies tend to go with this task. The most salient of these
are monitoring, elaboration, and inferencing.
1 f3
1 1 1 - 1 1 7
Writing. Exhibit 111-24 presents the average number of times the foureffective students used the various learner strategies while writing during
the think aloud sessions of Spring 86 and 87. In both sessions, students were
asked to write about a picture in their workbook and were permitted great
latitude in determining what they wanted to say and in setting their ownpace for saying it. Spring 86's picture was a busy intersection (see Appendix
D); SL..Iring 87's was of a crowded hotel lobby (see Appendix H).
Students report using exactly the same number of strategies in bothsemesters (61.3). However, the breakdown of which strategies were used in
. which semester (and how) is different: for example, metacognitive strategy
use went down slightly in Spring 87, while cognitive strategy use went up.
Further, within the category of metacognitive strategies, Planning for writing
increased, while self-evaluation plummeted. This latter is opposite to the
metacognitive trend noted in listening.
But how much did students write in the two semesters? The chart below
indicates their actual word/sentence production in both data collection points.
Category Spring 86 Spring 87
Average number ofsentences written
Average number ofwords in paragraph
Average number ofwords in a sentence
6.8 4.5
56.8 44.8
8.4 9.9
Obviously, each student tended to write more in Spring 86 than in the think
aloud session one year later. Yet more plinning, was done in the latter
1:11111.11T 1 1 I 2
Average Fragility and Permit of Strategy Use of Effective Spanish 3 Students During%RITMO ACTIVITY,
Sprig 1906 - Spring 1987
Sprig 1986 Spring 1987Sp 3 Effeettees* Sp 4 Effeettees*
Learning (nsi0 (no4)Strategy N %
METACOGNff NEll
li
nerdsPlanning 8.0 252 10.3 40.6
Directed Attention 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.0
Seleettie Attentke 0.3 OA 0.0 0.0
Selfinanagenunt 0.5 1.6 0.5 2.0
Subtotal, Plovdiv
tlE8019
8.8 27.6 11.0 43.6
Selknenttoring 14.0 44.1 11.3 44.6
FaintsSelf-evabastion 9.0 28.3 3.0 11.9
TOTAL, METACOONITNE 31.8 100.0 23.3 100.0
COGNITIVE STRATEGES
Repetition 0.5 1.9 0.3 0.9
Resswo1no 1.0 3.7 05 13Translation 7.0 262 10.0 29.9
Grouping 0.5 1.9 1.0 3.0
Deintion/Inductbn 2.11 10.3 2.5 7.5
Siestikotton 4.3 15.9 4.0 11.9
Wien 0.5 1.9 0.5 1.5
Mention 6$ 242 11.0 322Transfer 2.3 8.4 1.5 4.3
wing 1.0 3.7 0.0 0.0
Sonatiriring 0.3 0.9 2.3 6.7
TOTAL, COOMTNE 262 100.0 333 100.0
SOCIAL AFFECTIVE STRATEOES
Gestles far Clot'. 2.8 100.0 2.5 100.0
TOTAL, AL STRA1D3ES 61.3 61.3
NOTE: Phsidows and pereestapo may wry slightly as M nunding.rims relate to the west 4 Meats, sanvoled SprIne 26 and again ln Spin ST.
**Soda offset*, strategies of esoperatten aM oelPtalt an net tabled here; She thilt aloudlatiniews did rat obit ese strateihs.
1 1 - 1 19
session. The students appeared to take more time to examine the picture and
think about what they wanted to write, rather than just jumping in andbeginning to write. As an example:
(Spring 86, starting the task): I'm just trying to pick out whichone I want to be. I think I'm going to be these kids here withthe radio.
(Spring 87, starting the task): I guess it's in a hotel or somethingand this girl's got a dog and he's running away. (I'm) just kindof look at what everybody's doing. The guy on the phone, thebellhop on the ground...and perro... I'm sort of labellingeverything in Spanish, as 1 go through looking at the picture.(#11)
The level, at which the students planned was also different, as the chartbelow indicates:
Type ofPlan
Raw Count Raw CountSpring 86 Spring 87
Discourse 3 5General 7 7Sentence-level 17 4Phrase-level 5 22Other 0 3Raw total, Planning 32 41Average (nral) 8.0 10.3
Most striking in these figures is that in Spring 1986 students tended to plan at
the sentence level; one year later, the, appeared to plan predominately at the
Phrase level. As an illustration of this shift in focus:
(Spring 86, sentence level plan): I'm going to put that thepoliceman doesn't see.
(Spring 87, two phrase level plans): Let's see, I'll give thesepeople names. Los Gomez, cos it's used a lot everywhere... losGomez sign the register (pause while writes "Los Gomez firmanel registro")... I wanna say "and the worker says, urn... sayswelcome." (finishes the sentence with "y el dependiente diceBierhvenido.") (#07)
I.' 4
I I I -1 2 0
While translation plays an obvious part in the above example, in fact most of
the effective students tended to begin their sentences in Spanish and revert to
English when they ran into difficulties. This initial generation in Spanish
happened in both semesters and, typically, occurred at the phrase level, with
the students using "stock" phrases with which they were very familiar.
"Those would be newlyweds," observes one student (#11) of the Spring 87
hotel lobby picture. "I automatically associate these two, I think its the
pictures with our lessons that really do it, cos I see that and it's novios, cos
they look...like they just got married. So I'll say unos novios...acaban de...
that's just another one of those catch phrases..." He pauses at this point to
consider what the word "to marry" might be.
As was noted in an earlier section of this report, creating at the phrase level
is not an unusual approach to writing even when writing in the native
language. In Spring 86 these students showed many signs of approaching
writing in Spanish as they would approach the task in English. One year
later, the signs are even stronger. They are concerned with producing
cohesive paragraphs, not isolated sentences ("Whenever I have to write
something, I try and think of how I can relate everybody to everybody else",
Sp4#11), with whether the words they choose are communicating the message
they want (I'm jusc trying to get the idea across of the sequence of the dog
and the girl and the man", Sp4#01), with the logic of what they are saying
("I guess they didn't just get married if they have a baby. Of course, you
know, it happens", Sp4#11), and with creativity ("maybe it's grandmother
sitting in there, yeah, grandma, abuela... she, oh yeah, she wants to go to the
casino", Sp4#05). Perhaps because their proficiency in Spanish has increased,
the students need to devote less time to struggling over the words and
struci-_-(res and can afford to spend more time in creating a paragraph with a
consistent or clever perspective.
Many of the writing considerations listed above involve self-monitoring, one
of the strategies that showed a small decrease in use from one year to the
next (an average of 14.0 self-monitors in the Spring 86 writing session and
11.3 in Spring 87). Part of the decline could be due to the fact that students
wrote less in Spring 87, but there is also a small shift in how the students
self-monitored, as indicated by sub-category below.
Type ofSelf-monitor
Raw Count Raw CountSpring 86 Spring 87
Comprehension 22 18Double check 4 0Production 12 14Style 3 6Auditor y/Visual 15 7Raw total, Self-monitor 56 45Average (n=4) 14.0 11.3
Stylistic self-monitoring went up, while auditory, double check, and
comprehension monitoring declined. Again, it would seem as if the students
were more sure of their ability to write in Spanish in the Spring 87 session
and spent less time occupied with actual details of Spanish. A similar shift
in use of self-evaluation appears to confirm such an explanation. Not only
did the students average a much lower use of self-evaluation but a closer
look at how they self-evaluated shows much less time spent examining their
language repertoire to see if they know how to say this word or that one or
in checking over their work to see if they have accented and spelled words
properly.
I I 1 - 1 2 2
In terms of the cognitive strategies, virtually no changes took place in how
many times the four students used deduction or substitution. Elaboration
and summarizing, however, showed an increased usage, a finding in keeping
with the Spring 87 listening data (see above). As with the listening data, the
type of elaboration used by students shows a shift, as indicated below.
Type ofElaboration
Raw Count Raw CountSpring 86 Spring 87
Personal 8 6Academic 7 16World 0 6Between Parts 2 6Creative 3 7Other 6 3Raw total, elaborations 26 44Average (n=4) 6.5 11.0
Spring 87 writing samples, then, show these students using many more
academic, world, between parts, and creative elaborations as they produce
their paragraphs. These increases may result from the fact that strategies
often appear in combination with each other. For example, an increased
concern with style and cohesion (Planning, say, at the discourse level) would
result in awareness that the various parts of the paragraph must hold
together and, thus, an increase in elaboration between parts would be in
order. That students showed increases in so many subcategories of
elaboration, both here and in the listening data, may suggest that they are
becoming more adept at using the range of their knowledge, drawing not just
from what they have learned in school, but also from their own creativity
and from what they know of the world ("1 wanna say 'and the worker says
welcome'... I think that'd be really weird if someone said that to me. People
don't say welcome, they say, can I help you?", Sp4#07).
I I I 1 2 3 1 ty1 Lx
In summary, then, a picture of how these effective students hive changed in
writing in Spanish emerges from the longitudinal comparisons. They seem
to show less concern with the content of their vocabulary repertoire and
much more concern with getting across their points. To this end, they plan
more and monitor their style, drawing from world knowledge and their own
creative ideas to produce work that they feel less need to check (self-evaluation). In many regards, their newfound tendency to summarize may
perform the functions of self-evaluation, for they occasionally re-read what
they had written before producing the next piece. Such an act may allow
them to check their work even as it helps them to unify the varioussentences. What seems evident, though, is that the use of the variousstrategies is tied to producing a good written product; that the product is inSpanish seems, at times, almost a secondary concern. What limitations the
students encounter in their vocabulary they neatly side-step, showing that
they have become more practiced at working with what they know and lesshamstrung by what they do not.
It , r-.1_ t.)
Spanish 5/6 Longitudinal Results
Data from the writing and the cloze activities are available for longitudinal
comparisons of students at the advanced level of Spanish study. Longitudinal
data from Spring 1986 to Spring 1987 are available for two effective students
only (the two less effective Spanish 5 students graduated in Spring 86 and
could not be followed longitudinally).
Writing. Exhibit 111-25 presents the average number of times the two
effective students used the various learning strategies while writing during
the think aloud sessions of Spring 86 and 87. In both sessions, students were
asked to write about a picture in their workbooks. The same pictures were
used as with Spanish 3 and Spanish 4 students; in Spring 86, a drawing of a
busy city intersection was used to elicit the writing sample (see Appendix D),
while the pi,...ture of a crowded hotel lobby was used in Spring 87 (see
Appendix H).
Students reported using more than twice as many strategies in Spring 87 (an
average of 114.5 strategies used) than in Spring 86 (an average of 49.5). This
held true in all three categories of strategies. Metacognitive strategies rose
from an average number of 29.5 in Spring 86 to an average of 55.5 in Spring
87. Cognitive strategies rose from an average of 17.5 to an average of 48, and
social/affective strategies rose from 2.5 in 1986 to 11 in 1987. Differences were
also found in the percentage of strategies used in each of the three categories.
Use of metacognitive strategies fell from one year to the next (59.6% of all
strategies used in Spring 86, compared with 48.5% in Spring 87), while use of
cognitive and social/affective strategies rose (cognitive: 35.4% in Spring 86,
41.9% in Spring 87; social/affective: 5.1%, up to 9.6%). What this indicates is
1311111217 1 1 1 - 25
Average Frequency and Percent of Strategy Use of Effective Spanish 5/6 Students DuringWRITING ACTIVITY,
Spring 1986 - Spring 1987
LearningStrategy
Spring 1986Sp 3 Effecrives*
(n=2)N 95
Spring 1907Sp 6 Effectives*
(n=2)N 95
METACOGNITIVE
M:19Planning 8.0 35.6 14.0 25.5
Selective Attention 0.3 22 0.0 0.0
Self-management 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.7Monitor*
Self-monitei-ing 7.0 31.1 31.0 56.4
Ulla&Self-evaluation 7.0 31.1 8.5 15.5
TOTAL, METACOGNITIVE 22.5 100.0 55.0 100.0
CODNITNE STRATEGIES
Repetition 0.0 0.0 2.5 4.7Translation 2.5 13.9 5.0 9.4Grouping 0.0 0.0 15 2.8
Deduction/induction 3.3 19.4 9.0 16.8
Substitution 2.0 11.1 6.0 112Auditory Representation 1.0 5.6 0.0 0.0
Elaboration 8.5 472 21.5 402Transfer 0.3 2.8 2.3 4.7Sumarking OD 0.0 5.5 10.3
TOTAL, COGNITIVE 18.0 100.0 53.5 100.0
SOCIAL AFFECTNE STRAIIIIES**
Question for Cir. 2.5 100.0 11.0 100.0
TOTAL, ALL STRATEGES 43.0 119.5
NOTE: Northers and percentages may vary slightly due to rounding.* Filing relate le the sane 2 students, sarcbd in Spring 86 and ay* in Spring 87.
*4 $004iii affeettve strategies of oeoperatice and self -talk are not included tare; the think aloudinterviews did not elicit these strategies.
BEST COPY AURAE111-126 I "i
that, while overall use of all categories of straetgies increased, the increase
was greatest in cognitive strategy use. The most dramatic strategy increases
were noted in the use of: self-monitoring, elaboration, and summarizing.
In comparing the amount written in the two semesters, relatively small
differences are seen:
Category Spring 86 Spring 87
Average number ofsentences written 4.0 4.5
Average number ofwords in paragraph 59.0 66.0
Average number ofwords in sentence 14.8 16.3
The most striking difference in writing samples from 1986 to 1987 is in the
overall quality and cohesion of the paragraphs produced. In 1986, both
effective students were content to describe the picture and the action in it.
In 1987, however, the same students used the picture as a springboard to
develop an original story. English translations of the writing samples for
both semesters are presented in Exhibit 111-26, to illustrate the qualitative
differences in the writing samples of these two effective students.
The writing samples not only show the development of a greater command of
Spanish, but also an increasing ability to use the language to express their
own ideas creatively. So that even though the actual amount written was
only slightly greater in Spring 87, the organization and coherence of the
paragraphs was much improved.
LJ11 1 127
The improvement in quality of writing was accompanied by an increase in
the number of strategies used. Of the metacognitive strategies, students used
more planning strategies (an average of 14) in Spring 87 than in Spring 86 (an
average of 11), and far more self-monitoring strategies (an average of 31.5 in
Spring 87, versus only 9 in Spring 86). Self-evaluation, however, was the
same (8.5) for both years.
As with Spanish 3 students, the level at which students planned was
different in the two years, as the chart below indicates:
Type ofPlan
Raw CountSpring 86
Raw CountSpring 87
Discourse 4 5General 2 9Sentence level 6 2Phrase level 5 22Other 2 3Raw total, Planning 16 28Average (n=2) 8 14
The most frequent type of planning in Spring 86 was at the sentence level,
whereas the most frecoent type one year later was at the phrase level. The
following examples illustrate these differences in approach to planning:
Spring 86, sentence level plan: And now I'm going to say, maybethey came from two different streets.
Spring 87, phrase level plan: Oh, that's it! Tan, no, no, la obraI'm trying to think of a word that goes with obra (work). I think,well, esta, well, I'll Just la, esta obra tan magnifica. (St5/64,02)
H I -12P
EXHIBIT I I 1 -26
Comparison of Written Products of Two Effective Spanish 5/6 Students,Spring 86 and Spring 87
English Translations of Paragraphs*
Student *02:
Spring 86: [Blanks were left for the word "policeman", which the studentdid not know how to say in Spanish.] The was directing trafficwhen there was an accident. A car was in one street and the other one wasin the street to the left of the other car and didn't see that the other car wasmoving and CRASH!!! [written in English]. He has an arm. There are alsosome children that were playing their radio very loud. Some people said tothe that they were mad about the music and if the could dosomething.
Spring 87: In this picture, Mr. and Mrs. Cruz are asking for their key.They are very happy because their baby is not sick anymore. For manyyears he did not grow and one day a miracle occurred and the baby grewtwo meters - and the reab..)n why he doesn't look very big [in the picture] isbecause it hadn't happened yet at the moment in which this magnificentwork [the picture] was created.
Student *03:
Spring 1986: In one part of the picture a man falls into a construction area,and the man shouts for help. The workers don't realize that the man hasfallen. One of the workers doesn't hear the screams because he is workingwith a machine that makes a lot of noise.
Spring 1987: The father and the sone were travelling in a car, when the sonsaid he was tired. The father saw a hotel and stopped the car. The father,the son, and his dog entered the hotel. But the dog didn't like the hotel andwanted to get out. The father and the son started to run to capture the dog.The dog escaped and ran out of the hotel.
* The actual paragraphs written by these students in Spanish are presentedon the reverse side of this page.
EXHIBIT 1 1 -26(continued)
Actual Spanish Production of Students
Student *02:
Spring 1986: El estaba dirigiendo el trafico cuando habia un acidente. Uncoche estaba en una calle y el otro estaba en la calle a la izquierda del otrocoche y no vio que el otro coche estaba moviendo y CRASH!!! El tiene unbrazo. Tambien habian unos nilios que tocaban su radio muy alto. Algunaspersonas dijeron al que se enojaban de la musica y si podia elhacer also.
Spring 1987: En este dibujo, Solara y Senor Cruz estan pidiendo su llave.El los estan muy felices porque su bebe ya no esti' enfermo. Hace muchosarias que no crecia y un dia ocurri6 un milagro y el bebe crecio dos metros -y la razon porque no parece muy grande es que no habia ocurrido en elmomento en que se crey6 esta obra tan magnifica.
Student *03:
Spring 1986: En una parte de el cuadro, un hombre se cae un area deconstruccion, y el hombre grita para ayuda. Los trabajadores no dan cuentade que el hombre ha caido. Una de los trabajadores no oye los gritos porquetrabaja con una machina que hace mucho ruido.
Spring 1987: El padre y el hijo estaba viajando en un carro, cuando el hijodijo que estaba cansado. El padre vio un hotel y part el carro. El padre, elhijo, y su perro entraron en el hotel. Pero, at perro no le gustaba el hotel yqueria salir. El padre y el hijo comenzaron a correr para capturar el perro.El perro esnapo y corri6 fuera del hotel.
In planning at the sentence level, students typically generated a sentence they
wanted to say in English, then sought to translate it into Spanish. When
they encountered translation difficulties, they would then decide to write an
easier or a different sentence. For example, after Student #02 (see Exhibit
III-26) indicated that she was going to say that the two cars in the picture
came from two different streets, she made a number of elaborations while
looking for an appropriate verb for the planned sentence, then said, "But,
urn, I decided that was all too complicated to think out, so I'm just going to
say it was on one street."
In contrast, students Planning at the phrase level typically would begin by
starting a sentence directly in Spanish, then plan an appropriate continuation
phrase in English, modifying it if difficulties were encountered in searching
for the equivalent Spanish phrase. As an example, the student who wrote
about the father and son stopping at the hotel (see Exhibit III- ) started by
general planning for the meaning she wished to communicate: " ... so I'm
just going to write a beginning ... sentence about this group of people right
here." She then wrote the first phrase of the beginning sentence, making
several decisions about word choice and verb tenses as she wrote. Having
written "El padre y el hijo estaba viajando," she asked herself how they
were travelling and planned the next phrase "en el carro." She then decides
to add a subordinate clause to the sentence and writes "cuando" (when), then
begins some general planning about the things that might happen. She writes
"el hijo dijo" (the son said), and Plans the next phrase by saying "I'm
thinking 'tired'." She then. generates the phrase "estaba cansado" (was tired)
to conclude the sentence. This planning approach seems to allow for a great
deal more flexibility in language use, and resembles the recursive way in
04
which native speakers of a language plan, compose, and revise throughout
the writing process (Hillocks, 1987).
The other metacognitive strategy showing a marked increase from Spring 86
to Spring 87 was self-monitoring, which rose from an average of 9 to anaverage of 31.5 instances. (This was in contrast to students in Spring 3/4,
who showed a decline in the use of this strategy in the year studied.) The
type of self-monitoring used by Spanish 5/6 students in Spring 86 and 87 was
as follows:
Type ofSelf-monitor
Raw CountSpring 86
Raw CountSpring 87
Comprehensibility 0 . 10Production 12 30Style 0 14Auditory/Visual 2 8Raw total, Self-monitor 14 62Average (n=2) 7 31
In Spring 86 both effective Spanish 5 students were using self-monitoring
predominately for their production, as in these examples: "I was justwondering if there was an accent on habia (#02) and "Now I'm trying to spell
it, think of how to spell it - trabajadores [writes word)" (#03). A year later,
however, both were using a wide variety of types of self-monitoring,
although monitoring for production was still the most frequent type.
For example, in Spring 87 students showed evidence of monitoring the
comprehensibility of what they were writing, as in the student writing the
paragraph about the baby's miraculous cure. Upon reaching the point of
indicating how much the baby grew as a result of the miracle, the student
I I I -132
13
generated in Spanish "credo dos pies" [he grew two feet], then realized that
the metric system would be used in a Spanish speaking country (world
elaboration). So instead she wrote "dos metros" [two meters], then observed
laughingly, "I'm sure that's a lie!"
In Spring 87 students also monitored for style. For example, the student who
wrote the paragraph about the father, son, and dog had reached the point
where she wanted to complete the sentence about running to capture the dog,
and she had some difficulty in finding the exact verb she needed. She
checked and rejected a number of verbs, such as: "I was going through
obtener [obtain]. I thought, obtener is not appropriate to the situation."
(Sp6 *03) And the student who eventually wrote about the miraculous
growth of the baby indicated a consciousness of style by starting the writing
task with, "I'm trying to think of what they're doing and ... I didn't want to
write something like a boring sentence. I was going to say something like
Senora y Senor Cruz estan en vacaciones [Mrs. and Mr. Cruz are on
vacation), and that's really boring. That sounds like it's out of Spanish Book
One, so that's really dull. That's why I make up stories so they won't be
dull."
The increase in cognitive strategy use between Spring 86 and 87 was
substantial (an average of 18 strategy instances grew to an average of 53.5
instances), and involved for the most part four strategies: deduction,
substitution, elaboration, and summarizing. Of these four, elaboration
showed by far the greatest increase, rising from an average of 8.5 instances
in Spring 86 to an average of 21.5 in Spring 87. A comparison of the types of
elaboration used each year is summarized in the chart below:
Type of Raw Count Raw CountElaboration Spring 86 Spring 87
Personal 6 14Academic knowledge 7 4World knowledge 4 5
Between Parts 0 4Creative 0 9Other 0 7
Raw total, Elaborations 17 43Average (n=2) 8.5 21.5
While students decreased the number of elaborations based on academic
knowledge, strategy use in all other sub-categories increased. The increase
in range of types of elaborations is as striking as the increase in totalaverage instances. Instead of relying for the most part on personal,academic, and world knowledge elaborations, students also elaborated
between Darts of the writing task and used a number of creative
elaborations as they composed.
The creative elaborations made by students in Spring 87 suggest that students
are less occupied with the details of writing in Spanish and more involved in
producing an interesting paragraph. Examples of these types of elaborations
are: in writing about the couple with the miraculous baby "Okay, they'renewly- no ... newlyweds? They already have a baby. Oh well, I don't know
how to say newlyweds anyway" (fSp6#02), and in writing about the father,
son, and dog, "I'm thinking first, he has to do something before he stops the
car, he has to find the hotel first before he stops the car" (Sp6 *03).
It 1-134
As with the Spanish 4 students, these two effective Spanish 6 students used
the strategy of summarization in Spring 87, but not the year before. Both
students used this strategy to periodically read out a sentence once they had
completed it. This appears to be a way of summarizing the meaning so that
a logical follow-up to it can be planned, thus creating a cohesive paragraph.
The use of deduction also increased, almost three-fold between Spring 86 and
Spring 87 for these students. One student did not use this strategy at all the
first year, but used it five times while producing her paragraph in the
second year. The other student increased her use of deduction from 7 times
(30% of all cognitive strategy use) to 13 times (27% of all cognitive strategy
use). The student who used deduction most frequently used this strategy as
she mentioned the grammatical rules that needed to be applied to the verb
ending, gender, tense, or preposition, as in the following examples:
Spring 86:.., but then I thought again and said, well, this is caer [to fall],an ER verb, it has to be caido [fallen].
Spring 87:I'm thinking correr [to run], corri6 [ran], I'm checking the verbforms. (#03)
What emerges is that these two effective students have substantial
differences in their reliance on use of grammatical rules to generate written
language. The student who rarely uses deduction spent a number of years
as a young child in a Spanish speaking country and is more fluent in Spanish
than the other student, who has learned Spanish through school study. In
spite of difference in proficiency and exposure to the language, however, both
are effective students at the most advanced level of high school Spanish.
111-135 1S
Both students also showed an increase in their use of substitution from one
year to the next, from an average of 2 to an average of 6 instances. As the
following examples indicate, substitution was used in similar ways in bothsemesters:
Spring 86:I'm using miquinawhich I don't know.
Spring 87:The student realizes"the Smiths" and so
[machine] as a substitute for jackhammer,(Sp5#03)
she does not know the Spanish equivalent forsubstitutes "Senora y Senor Cruz." (Sp6#02)
In conclusion, a growth in use of cognitive strategy use for the writing task
over the one year period was apparent for both effective students. The
growth was not only in total numbers of cognitive strategies used, but also in
range. In Spring 86 students used 6 of the 15 different cognitive strategies
identified throughout the study (40z), whereas a year later they used 8different strategies (53.3M. It should be remembered that not all strategies
are elicited by every type of task, and that some of the cognitive strategies
included in our list, such as inferencing, are probably more appropriate for
receptive than for productive language skills.
The increase in use of social/affective strategies from Spring 86 to 87 was due
entirely to students' use of this strategy to question themselves, which
occurred in Spring 87 but not a year before. Examples of the way in which
this strategy was used in Spring 87 are: "I'm thinking follow, run, should I
say follows or run?" (Sp6 *03); "Oops, did I miss an accent?" (Sp6 *02); "Now,
I don't know - what can these parents feel?" (Sp6#02). These types of
111-136
questions are in the nature of interior monologues, not direct questions to the
interviewer, and seem to serve as springboards to the composing and
revision of their written products.
Reading and Grammar Cloze Activity. Although students completed a reading
and grammar doze activity in both Spring 86 and Spring 87, the specific
structures of the tasks were somewhat different. In Spring 86 students
were provided with a story in which some of the verbs had been deleted. At
each deletion point, there was a blank to be filled in and the infinitive form
of the required verb in parentheses. Thus, students had to use mainly
grammatical knowledge to decide on the verb form and tense, with semantic
knowledge not as necessary for task completion. In fact, one less effective
student, when asked to summarize the Spring 86 passage, said, "I wasn't
looking to understand it." He went on to describe his approach to the task as
"I pretty much just look at the grammar part there, but rather than justindividual words, key words that help me with the grammar ... and the
key point is to figure out what tense the verb should be in" (Sp5#01).
This description fairly summarizes the approach students took on the Spring
86 doze task, which elicited a large proportion of deductions based on
grammatical rules. The doze activity a year later was more integrative in
nature, in that every seventh to ninth word In the passage was deleted, and
students were not provided with the base form of the word required for the
blank. Not only verbs were deleted, but also nouns, adjectivees, articles,
pronouns, and prepositions. Students had to rely not only on grammatical
clues but also on semantic clues in the context in order to select an
appropriate word for the blank. The nature of the task forced them to attend
I I I -137
to the meaningfulness of what they were reading, and this may have some
bearing on the fact that, for this task, the two effective students available
for longitudinal comparisons used only half as many deductions (an average
of 3.0) as they had for the doze a year before (an average of 6.0). Because of
differences in the nature of the two doze tasks, then, any longitudinal
comparisons must be made with caution.
In both Spring 86 and Spring 87, the two students completed varying amounts
of the cloze activity. Since both students filled in at least the first six blanks
of both years' doze, data are reported for only this portion of the dozeactivity. (The first five and a half sentences only were used for Spring 86
comparisons [see Exhibit 111-19] because this. was the greatest number ofblanks completed by one of the less effective students.)
Exhibit 71-27 presents major strategy use by two effective students in Spring
86 and 87. As can be seen, the total number of strategies used showed only a
modest gain, nor did the percentages of metacognitive, cognitive, and
social/affective strategy use change appreciably. It appears as if the
strategies these students used to perform a doze activity remained fairly
stable. The greatest changes in strategy use are an increase in self-monitoring (from 6.5 to an average of It) and a decrease in translation (from
4.5 in Spring 86 to an average of 2.5 in Spring 87) and deduction (falling from
an average of 6 instances to 3). (In the case of deduction, it must be kept in
mind that the doze task in Spring 86 elicited deduction because students had
to conjugate a verb fdr the blank.) There was also an increase in auestions
asked, from an average of 0.5 in Spring 86 to an average of 3.5 in the next
year's data collection. Interestingly, this rise was due to the fact that in
EXHIBIT I I I - 27
Longitudinal Comparison of Average Frequency and Percent of Strategy Use ofSpanish 5/6 Effective Students on Reading/Grammar Cloze Task,
Spring 1986 - Spring 1987
LearningStrategy
Spring 1986Sp 5 Effactivess
(n=2)
Spring 1987Sp 6 Effectivesm
(n=2)
METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES
Selective Attention 2.5 17.2 0.5 2.9
Self-monitoring 6.5 44.8 11.0 64.7
Self-evaluation 5.5 27.9 4.0 23.5
Other metacognitive 0.0 0.0 1.5 8.8
TOTAL, METACOGNITIVE 14.5 100.0 17.0 100.0
COGNITIVE STRATEGIES
Translation 4.5 19.6 2.5 11.9
Deduction 6.0 26.1 3.0 14.3
Elaboration 7.5 32.6 8.5 40.5
Inferencing 3.5 152 3.5 16.7
Other cognitive 1.5 6.5 3.5 16.7
TOTAL, COGNITIVE 23.0 100.0 21.0 100.0
SOCIAL/AFFECTIVE STRATEGIES
Questioning 0.5 50.0 3.5 100.0
Self-talk 0.5 50.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL, SOCIAL/AFFECTIVE 1.0 100.0 3.5 100.0
TOTAL, ALL STRATEGIES 38.5 41.5
Proportion of Strategy Type Spring. 1986 Spring. 1986
P
Percentage of MetacognItIve Strategies 37.7% 41.0%
Percentage of Cognitive Strategies 59.7 50.6
Percentage of Social/Affective Strategies 2.6 8.4
NOTE: Numbers and percentages may' very slightly due to rounding.
Figures relate to the same 2 students. sampled in Spring 1966 and again in Spring 1987.1111139
Spring 87 students had begun to ask themselves questions (coded questions to
self) as they worked on the task. A similar change was noted in the writing
task.
in summary, the number and range of strategies used by the two effective
students to perform the dime did not appear to vary greatly from Spring 86to Spring 87. Differences in the task structure may have obscureddifferences to some degree, however. Abstractions of student think alouds
are provided below to illustrate the steps by which both students solved one
sentence in the Spring 86 dime activity.
Solving One Sentence in the Cloze: Spring '86
Students are working on the sentence: En el pasado, esto poco,y ademis era siempre en serio.Translation of sentence: In the past, this [adolescents leaving home] ___(tohappen, occur)._ rarely, and besides, it was always serious.
Student *02:- reads the first phrase, en el pasado, and says : "I don't really know
what that means yet" (self-evaluation).
she then speculates that it is something about the past (inferencinfa
she tries out a possible verb tense by reading it in context: "Esto haoccurido [this has happened]... it sounds correct" (auditory self-
she then reads the next phrase twice (rebetition) and says that she hadto think about it and "I think I translated into English" (translation).
later in the interview, in discussing how she had worked on thissentence later in the interview, she indicates that she translated thephrase "en el pasado" but that it had not helped make the sentencemake more sense (gelfzeyabatisuLascngri,hengon).
she re-reads the phrase "y ademits era siempre en serio" and says,"That still doesn't make sense to me" (self-monitoring ofcomprehension).
she then looks back to the first paragraph and says, "It sounds like inthe paragraph before (glikuulanjejaysenpariO.
- she finally attempts another translation, which is incorrect: "Thisthing isn't serious or something."
I(:
Solving One Sentence in the Cloze, Spring '86 (continued):
Student *03:
looks at the sentence and indicates that she is just translating. Shethen gets to "ademis" [besides] and says, "I know I've seen that wordbefore I've looked it up" (academic elaboration) and continues "But Ialways forget it" (self-evaluation).
she then looks again at the sentence and decides that "it's not reallysuper important" (selective attention).
she then applies a grammatical rule: "I'm thinking, okay, that "esto"refers to what just happened" (deduction).
she goes on to translate the next phrase correctly [it was alwaysserious] and monitors her translation of the phrase: " ... it was alwaysserious, always a serious thing."
she then goes on to connect what she understands of the sentence withthe first phrase [in the past] and re-reads the Spanish, adding "I thinkof the preterite, you know, I think of the. past" (academic elaboration).
finally she switches to a deduction mode to figure out the verb ending:"I'm going through verb endings ... I'm thinking of i-e verbs ...ocurrio ".
In looking at these two approaches to solving the problems posed by the
example's sentence, it is apparent that both students used a variety of
metacognitive and cognitive strategies, and that their overriding concern was
to discover the meaning of the sentence. This latter observation is
particularly true of the first student (#02) who, having already solved the
immediate problem of the verb tense to be written in the blank, still
continues to worry about what the sentence means.
A similar general approach is evident in the Spring 87 data for these two
students. Both emphasized understanding the meaning of the sentence or
paragraph as opposed to being satisfied with finding a correct grammatical
1 t,111 -141
answer for the blank spaces. This is illustrated by the following examples ofthe think alouds produced by these students for one sentence in the Spring 87cloze:
Solving One Sentence in the Cloze: Spring '87Students are working on the sentence: Un dia la ranita mas vinonadando furiosamente hacia su padre, toda sofocada muerta de miedo.Translation of sentence: One day the froggie came swimmingfuriously toward her father, all out of breath _ scared to death.Student *02:
reads the first phrase, un dia la ranita mas, and generates a possibleanswer, "It's probably pequeila [small] ... cos they said ranita"(deduction).
She decides, though, to check to see if this answer fits, "Well, let'ssee ... " (self-monitoring) and reads on to the next phrase, vino nadandofuriosamente, stumbling on the pronunciation of "furiosamente." Shecorrects herself (self-monitoring. production) and chastises herselfmildly: "Hm ... English pronunciation creeping in there" (self -,evaluation).
At this point she makes a final decision about putting "pequefia" in theblank so that she can move on in the exercise (self-management): "I'lljust go back here and put pequelia in so I don't have to think aboutthat anymore."
She reads on, carefully pronouncing the word "sofocada" (self-monitoring, production) and adding, "Hm, hard to say ... " (self-evaluative elaboration). She indicates "maybe I don't know it" (self-evaluation, word).
She goes back and reads the phrase again, adding in the phrasefollowing the blank: "toda sofocada blah-blah muerta de miedo." Shewrites in "casi" (almost], then re-reads the phrase (self-monitoring.Production) and adds "y" [and] in front of "cast ", so that the sentencereads: "toda sofocada y casi muerta de miedo" [all out of breath andalmost dead of fright].
Although she has filled in the blank with two words, this solution isacceptable, and the resulting sentence makes more literal sense thanthe original sentence. The phrase " y muerta de miedo" translatesliterally as "and dead of fright" but idiomatically it means "scared todeath."
ti
1113.142
Solving One Sentence in the Cloze: Spring '87 (continued)
Student *03:
Begins reading the sentence, un dia la ranita, and interrupts her readingto clarify the meaning of ranita: "I'm thinking ranita, that's kind oflittle frog" (translation).
She resumes reading, "la ranita mas ", stops, and says "I'm thinkingit's an adjective" (deduction, problem identification).
Not knowing what adjective to write in the blank, she reads the entiresentence for additional clues (inferencins0 and has to correct herpronunciation of "toda" (self-monitoring. production).
Then she appears to get involved in the story itself, asking herself"Okay, what kind of frog is this frog?" (elaboration by questioning).She re-reads "la ranita mas " and decides to write in "pequefia",although she has doubts because " -ita, that like says pequefio" (self-monitorinx, elaboration between parts). [Note: The "-ita" on ranita isthe diminutive form, meaning little3 as does pequefia.]
When told by the interviewer that "pequefia" is correct, she comments"It seems redundant to me" (elaboration, personal).
Then she finishes reading the sentence and says she has no idea whatto put in the blank (self-evaluation). She re-reads, "Toda sofocada "and summarizes " apparently he is out of breath." When sheaddresses the phrase following the blank, she appears to generate theword she needs as she reads, "and then y muerta de miedo. So I'mjust assuming that that's what it is."
Although these examples offer minimal evidence of stability in strategy
choice, there is much evidence that, as mentioned above, the students' basic
approach to the task remains meaning-driven and that they retain, across
semesters, their personal styles. Student *02, who lived in South America
when she was little, relies upon her "ear" for the language and so monitors
heavily, while the other (#03) makes use of a wider range of cognitive
strategies in order to understand and find the correct answer.
In summary, what these longitudinal data suggest are that the
metacognitive strategies of self - monitoring self-evaluation are of
111-143 1 94
primary usefulness in a task of this sort. The exact cognitive strategies
chosen, though, can be expected to vary depending upon the sentence at hand
and the knowledge of its content that the student has readily available.These students appear to find the cognitive strategies of deduction,
summarizing, and elaboration most useful in solving the problems theyencounter.
D. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of the Longitudinal Study is to determine if differences exist in
the way that effective and ineffective language learners use strategies in
their foreign language study, and if their strategy use remains stable overtime or changes. Findings to date indicate that effective and ineffective
students of both Spanish and Russian tend to use similar strategies toperform language tasks but that effective students are likely to use a wider
range of strategies, as well as a greater number of strategies. However,
what emerges clearly from these data is the fact that counting the number
of strategies used by effective students and contrasting this with the number
used by ineffective students captures only the most superficial differences
between these two groups. Using strategies does not necessarily guarantee
successful task completion or successful language learning. Strategies do not,
by definition, always contribute to learning. Some strategy applications
may be off-target and irrelevant to the task, such as the student who offered
a personal elaboration about the wild weekend he enjoyed. Thus, to beconsidered a "good" strategy application, the strategy used must beappropriate to the task at hand and be intended to move the student forward
toward successful task completion.
Qualitative differences, then, were found in the way that effective versus
ineffective students applied learning strategies, with the effective learners
appearing to use more "on-target" strategies. In addition to persisting more
in trying to find a solution to problems encountered in language tasks,
effective students also seem to be more purposeful in their strategy use,
focusing their attention upon the task at hand and systematically working
III-1451
through it, while ineffective students, particularly at beginning levels of
study, seem to have difficulty in maintaining their task orientation.
Yet, while patterns in strategy use exist that differentiate effective from
ineffective language learners, much variation is apparent between individual
students in each effectiveness group. For example, one effective student
might favor an auditory approach to a task, while another might rely upon
visual memories. Moreover, there are effective students who seem"exceptional" in their intuition, power of concentration, and cognitiveflexibility, and ineffective students who suffer not so much frommotivational problems as from what appears to be reading or other learning
difficulties. These findings suggest that (a) no one profile of an effective or
ineffective learner exists, and (b) the strateglei students choose to use may be
influenced by personal style and other factors.
Several factors appear to impact strongly upon the strategies students choose
to use and, indeed, upon whether or not students can use strategies at all.
One of the most powerful determiners is the difficulty of the task: if the
task is too hard, strategy use may be unhelpful or impossible. Conversely, if
the task is too easy, strategy use is unnecessary. The student's motivation
to perform the task at hand or, in a broader sense, to study the language,
also has the power to determine strategy use and, ultimately, successful
learning. Many ineffective students, particularly those at the beginning
levels of Spanish study, had serious motivational problems that could be seen
to directly impede their internalization of even the basics of the language.
III-146
The nature of the task at hand, intent of the language program, and prior
language learning experience also appear to influence the strategies students
choose to use. The task of the writing, for example, can be facilitated by the
use of planning and self-monitoring; on the other hand, a student mayimprove his or her listening comprehension by pairing self-monitoring withstrategies such as selective attention, note-taking and summarization.
Looking at this from a different angle, what the student needs to do or know
in order to complete the task successfully (in other words, what the natureof the task requires) may determine which strategies are used. The
dehydrated sentences used in the Russian think alouds and, to some extent,
the Spanish cloze activity require grammatical knowledge and analysis on
the part of the students. Writing is a much more integrative task and
requires not just grammatical knowledge but also awareness of discourserules and style. Thus, the strategies students used to execute these twotasks, not surprisingly, varied.
In many cases, the nature of the tasks given the students is linked to theintent of the language program. If the program's intent is to develop
students' functional proficiency (as in the Russian intensive program), then
reading skills and the strategies that are useful while reading may be de-emphasized. The influence of program intent upon strategy use can be seen
most clearly in these data by contrasting how beginning Russian students
attacked a listening passage with how overwhelmed beginning Spanish
students were when faced with a similar task not stressed in their programof study.
Effects of program intent upon strategy choice and use may be mitigated
somewhat by whether or not students have studied (or learned natively)
other foreign languages. The majority of the university students of Russian
(and many of the effective Spanish students) had studied other foreign
languages which they often made reference to, either transferring specific
linguistic knowledge to help them figure out unknown items or using their
language learning "know-how", such as reading on in the text to look forclues as to meaning (inferencing). Students who had not been exposed to
other foreign languages often seemed unsure of how they were to solve
problems they encountered in the think aloud tasks.
That students can be taught to use strategies from the very beginning of
their language learning is apparent in these data. Beginning level effective
and ineffective students alike are discovering their own strategies for
language learning, but for some, the discovery process is slow andconfounding; systematic learning strategy instruction, such as what is donein the university Russian program, could prove very beneficial to theselearners.
The fact that the nature of the task influences which strategies students
choose to apply suggests that foreign language educators who wish to provide
their students with opportunities to learn and practice certain strategies
should carefully link this training (and subsequent practice) to specific tasks.
Exhibit 111-28 presents a listing of the predominate strategies that students
chose to use with the various language learning tasks given them. As can
be seen, a core of strategies exists that students appear to find most useful in
their language learning. These are: elf-monitoring, self-evaluation,
I I I -14P
EXHIBIT 111-28
A Matching of Strategies to Task
Task Metacognitive CognitiveStrategies Strategies
Vocabulary Self-monitoring ResourcingSelf-evaluation Elaboration
Listening Selective Attention Note-takingSelf-monitoring ElaborationProblem Identification Inferencing
Summarizing
ReadingCloze
Writing
Self-monitoringSelf-evaluation
TranslationDeductionInferencingElaboration
Planning ResourcingSelf-monitoring TranslationSelf-evaluation Deduction
SubstitutionElaborationSummarizing
2 0I I I -149
deduction, translation, and elaboration. That students tend to rely so
heavily upon translation may distress foreign language educators, but the
think aloud data shqw that, while the strategy is by no means the only one
students use, even effective students translate to facilitate their
understanding. As language study continues, however, effective students
show signs of diminishing the amount of translation used, often times only
resorting to the strategy when there is a major breakdown in comprehension
or communication.
What the exhibit does not show, however, is the multi-dimensional ways in
which these strategies can be used. For example, monitoring duringwriting need not be exclusively to ensure that accent marks, verbconjugation, and spelling are correct; effective students also monitor for style
and the comprehensibility of what they are writing, and often makedecisions based upon how correct something sounds (auditory self-monitoring)
or looks (visual self-monitoring). Students should be made aware thatdifferent forms of key strategies (i.e., self-monitoring and elaboration) exist
and that each represents a valuable tool in language learning. The
particular form in which a strategy might be used, moreover, may relate
directly to the nature of the task being performed. As an example, students
are likely to find elaboration between parts mcre useful during a reading
activity than during a vocabulary or grammar activity, where academicelaborations may be more helpful.
The discovery of strategy sub-categories, or the varying ways in whichstudents apply strategies, represents a refinement in our understanding of
both strategies and language learning. Effective language learners tend to
2t)111-150
use a wide variety of strategies, both in combination and sequentially, as
well as alter how they use a strategy, with the primary goals of
understanding the language they are encountering and successfully
completing the task. If one strategy does not move them forward toward
task completion, they are more likely than the ineffective learner to try
another strategy or even the same strategy in a different form. What the
think aloud data suggest is that the effective learner is flexible in approach;
he or she will tend to use as many tools (strategies) as possible, in as many
of their forms (sub-categories) as possible.
Longitudinally speaking, strategies appear to remain fairly stable over time.
When confronted with a difficulty in Spring 87, most students tended to use
strategies similar to those they had used to solve problems the year before.
What appears most subject to change are the student's own interest andmotivation in the task or in language learning, and that it. is these changes
that lead to differences in approach or in effectiveness. Language learning,
then, is highly subject to motivational and situational influences, suggesting
that any strategy training provided to students should emphasize the
executive control aspects of metacognitive strategies.
The Next Steps in the Study
This report has detailed the findings of one year of the Longitudinal Study.
For as many questions as were answered, as many remain or are raised.
Subsequent reports will examine other aspects of the Longitudinal Study,
such as:
additional Spring 1986 Spring 1987 comparisons, focusingupon selected effective and ineffective students;
comparisons of strategies used in Fall 1986 - Fall 1987 thinkaloud sessions, focusing upon selected students and tasks;
analyses of strategy use linked to quality of languageperformance; and
how strategy use and the student think aloud data fit in tomodels of cognition (i.e., Anderson (1985).
Also to be reported in subsequent reports are the findings of the Course
Development Study, an exploratory study where students are being taught
how to use learning strategies for selected tasks.
()I 'A° I. Cy
111-152
LIST OF REFERENCES
Anderson, J.R. (1985). Cognitive psychology and and its implications (2nd ed.).New York: W.H. Freeman.
Atkinson, R.C., & Raugh, M.R. (1975). An application of mnemonic keywordmethod to the acquisition of Russian vocabulary. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: Human Learning and Memory, 104(2), 126-133.
Ausubel, D.P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning andretention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 51(3), 267-272.
Ausubel, D.P. (1978). In defense of advance organizers: A reply to thecritics. Review of Educational Research, 48(2), 251-257.
Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning.Language Learning, 28(1), 69-83.
Brown, A.L., & Palincsar, A.S. (1982). Inducing strategic learning fromtexts by means of informed, self-contrs1 training. Topics in Learning andLearning Disabilities, 2(1), 1-17.
Brown, A.L., Bransford, J.D., Ferrara, R.A., & Campione, J.C. (1983).Learning, remembering, and understanding. In P. Mussen, J.H. Flavell, &E.M. Markham (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Cognitivedevelopment (Vol. 3). New York: Wiley.
Cana le, M., & M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicativeapproaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics,1(1), 1-47.
Chamot, A.U., O'Malley, J.M., Kiapper, L., & Impink-Hernandez, M.V. (1987).A study of learning strategies in foreign language instrilction: First yearretort. Rosslyn, VA: Inter America Research Associates.
Chipman, S., Segal, J., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (1985). Thinking and learningskills: Relating learning to basic research (Vols. 1 & 2). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Eribaum Associates.
Cohen, D. (1983). Piagett Critique and reassessment. London: CroomHeim Ltd.
Cohen, A.D., & Aphek, E. (1980). Retention of second language vocabulary overtime: Investigating the role of mnemonic associations. System, .(3), 221-235.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues inassessment and Dedagostv. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.
Dansereau, D.F. (1985). Learning strategy research. In J. Segal, S. Chipman,& R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Relating learning to basicresearch (Vol. I). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates.
4 kJ111 -153 BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Dansereau, & Larson, C. (1983, April). Cooperative learning: The role ofindividual differences. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Montreal.
Flower, L.S., & Hayei, J.R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plansand juggling constraints. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitiveprocesses in yvr.itirig. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hillocks, G. (1987). Synthesis of research on teaching writing. EducationalLeadership. 44(8), 71-82.
Krashen, S.D. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acauisition.Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
Lamadrid, E.E., Bull, W.E., & Briscoe, L.A. (1974). Communicating in Spanish.Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). 'Theories of second-language learning. London:Edward Arnold.
McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T., & McLeod, B. (1983). Second language learning:An information processing perspective. Language Learning, 33(2), 135-158.
Naiman, N., Frolich, M., Stern, H.H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good languagelearner. Toronto: Modern Language Center, Ontario Institute for Studiesin Education.
O'Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Ktipper, L., & Russo,R.P. (1985a). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESLstudents. Language Learning, 35(1), 21-46.
O'Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R.P., &Kupper, L. (1985b). Learning strategy applications with students ofEnglish as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 1.1(3), 557-584.
O'Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., & Kiipper, L. (1986). The role of learningstrategies in cognitive psychology and second language acauisition: A
"I .: CII "h sio used b students of En lishas a second language. Rosslyn, VA: InterAmerica Research Associates.
O'Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., & Walker, C. (1986). The role of learningstrategies in cognitivc. pvschologv and second languagg acauisition: Amodel for research. Rosslyn, VA: InterAmerica Research Associates.
Oxford, R.L. (1985). A new taxonomy of second language learning strategies.Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
Politzer, R.L., & McGroarty, M. (1985). An exploratory study of learningbehaviors and their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicativecompetence. TESOL Quarterly, 12(1), 103-123.
Pressley, M., Levin, J.R., Nakamura, G.V., Hope, D.J., Bisbo, J.G., & Toye, A.R.(1980). The keyword method of foreign vocabulary learning: Aninvestigation of its generalizability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(6),635-642.
Rivers, W.M., Azevedo, M.M., Heflin, W.H., & Hyman-Opler, R. (1976). Apractical guide to the teaching of Spanish. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the "good language learner" can teach us. TESOLQuarterly, 9(1), 41 -51.
Saville, Troike, M. (1984). What really matters in second language learningfor academic achievement? TESOL Quarterly, 18(2), 199-219.
Slavin, R.E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research,50(2), 315-342.
Spolsky, B. (1985). Formulating a theory of second language learning.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7(3), 269-288.
Weinstein, C.E., & Mayer, R.E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies.In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). NewYork: Macmillan.
Wenden, A.L. (1983). Learner training for L2 learners: A selected review ofcontent and method. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the TESOLconvention, Toronto.
Wenden, A.L. (1985). Learner strategies. TESOL Newsletter, 19(5), 1-7.
Wittrock, M.C., Marks, C.B., & Doctorow, M.J. (1975). Reading as agenerative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 484-489.
Wong Fillmore, L., & Swain, M. (1984). Child second language development:Views from the field on theory and research. Paper presented at theTESOL Convention, Houston.
World Efiglih 4: The HBJ English Program. New York: Harcourt BraceJovanovich.
Yorkey, R.C., Barrutia, R., Chamot, A.U., Rainey, I.D., Gonzalez, J.B., Ney,J.W., & Woolf, W.L. (1984). New Inter Com 3. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
26III-155
APPENDIX A
ACTFLProficiency Guidelines
for Reading
ACTFLPROFICIENCY GUIDELINES
The 1986 proficiency guidelines represent a hierarchy of global characterizations of integrated performancein speaking, listening, reading and writing. Each description is a representative, not an exhaustive, sampleof a particular range of ability, and each level subsumes all previous levels, moving from simple to complexin an "all-before-and-more" fashion.
Because these guidelines identify stages of proficiency, as opposed to achievement, they are not intendedto measure what an individual has achieved through specific classroom instruction but rather to allow assess-Merit of what an individual can and cannot do, regardless of where, when, or how the language has beenlearned or acquired; thus, the words "learned" and "acquired" are used in the broadest sense. These guidelinesare not based on a particular linguistic theory or pedagogical method, since the guidelines are proficiency-based, as opposed to achievement-based, and are intended to be used for global assessment.
The 1986 guidelines should not be considered the definitive version, since the construction and utilizationof language proficiency guidelines is a dynamic, interactive process. The academic sector, like the govern-ment sector, will continue to refine and update the criteria periodically to reflect the needs of the users andthe advances of the profession. In this vein, ACTFL owes a continuing debt to the creators of the 1982 pro-visional proficiency guidelines and, of course, to the members of the Interagency Language Roundtable TestingCommittee, the creators of the government's Language Skill Level Descriptions.ACTFL would like to thank the following individuals for their contributions on this current guidelines project:
Heidi ByrnesJames ChildNina LevinsonPardee Lowe, Jr.Selidri MakinoIrene ThompsonA. Ronald Walton
These proficiency guidelines are the product of grants from the U.S. Department of Education.
2 sBEST COPY AVAILABLE
Gem
* D
escr
iptio
ns-R
eadi
ng
The
se g
uide
lines
ass
ume
all r
eadi
ng te
xts
to b
e au
then
tic a
nd le
gibl
e.
Nov
ice-
Low
Abl
e oc
casi
onal
ly to
iden
tify
isol
ated
wor
ds a
nd/o
r m
ajor
phr
ases
whe
n st
rong
ly s
uppo
rted
by
cont
ext.
Nov
ice
-Mid
Nov
ice
-Hig
h
Abl
e to
rec
ogni
ze th
e sy
mbo
ls o
f an
alph
abet
ic a
nd/o
r sy
llabi
c w
ritin
g sy
stem
and
/or
a lim
ited
num
ber
ofch
arac
ters
in a
sys
tem
that
use
s ch
arac
ters
. The
rea
der
can
iden
tify
an in
crea
sing
num
ber
of h
ighl
y co
nies
-'m
alla
rd w
ords
and
/or
phra
ses
incl
udin
g co
gnat
es a
nd b
orro
wed
wor
ds, t
ther
e ap
prop
riate
. Mat
eria
l und
erst
ood
rare
ly e
xcee
ds a
sin
gle
phra
se a
t a ti
me,
and
rer
eadi
ng m
ay b
e re
quire
d.
Has
suf
ficie
nt c
ontr
ol o
f the
writ
ing
syst
em to
inte
rpre
t writ
ten
lang
uage
in a
reas
of p
ract
ical
nee
d. W
here
voca
bula
ry h
as b
een
lear
ned,
can
rea
d fo
r in
stru
ctio
nal a
nd d
irect
iona
l pur
pose
s st
anda
rdiz
ed m
essa
ges,
phr
ases
or e
xpre
ssio
ns, s
uch
as s
ome
item
s on
men
us, s
ched
ules
, tim
etaa
s, m
aps,
and
sig
ns. A
t tim
es, b
ut n
ot o
na
cons
iste
nt b
asis
, the
Nov
ice
-Hig
h le
vel r
eade
r m
ay b
e ab
le to
der
ive
mea
ning
from
mat
eria
l at s
! *tig
htly
high
er le
vel w
here
con
text
and
/or
extr
alin
suis
tic b
ackg
roun
d kn
owle
dge
are
supp
ortiv
e.
Inte
rmed
iate
-Low
Abl
e to
und
erst
and
mai
n id
eas
and/
or s
ome
fact
s fr
om th
e si
mpl
est c
onne
cted
text
s de
alin
g w
ith b
asic
per
-so
nal a
nd s
ocia
l nee
ds. S
uch
text
s ar
e lin
guis
tical
ly n
onco
mpl
ex a
nd h
ave
a de
ar u
nder
lyin
g in
tern
al s
truc
ture
,fo
r ex
ampl
e ch
rono
logi
cal s
eque
ncin
g. T
hey
impa
rt b
asic
info
rmat
ion
abou
t whi
ch th
e re
ader
has
to m
ake
only
min
imal
sup
posi
tions
or
to w
hich
the
read
er b
rings
per
sona
l int
eres
t and
/or
know
ledg
e. E
xam
ples
in-
dude
mes
sage
s w
ith s
ocia
l pur
pose
s or
info
rmat
ion
for
the
wid
est p
ossi
ble
audi
ence
, suc
h as
pub
lic a
n-no
unce
nian
s an
d oh
m, s
trai
ghtfo
rwar
d in
stru
ctio
ns d
ealin
g w
ith p
ublic
life
. Som
e m
isun
ders
tand
ings
will
occ
ur.
Inte
rmed
iate
-Mid
Abl
e to
rea
d co
nsis
tent
ly w
ith in
crea
sed
unde
rsta
ndin
g si
mpl
e co
nnec
ted
text
s de
alin
g w
ith a
var
iety
of b
asic
and
soci
al n
eeds
. Suc
h te
xts
are
still
ling
uist
ical
ly n
onco
mpl
ex a
nd h
ave
a de
ar u
nder
lyin
g in
tern
al s
truc
ture
.T
hey
impa
rt b
asic
info
rmat
ion
abou
t whi
ch th
e re
ader
has
to m
ake
min
imal
sup
posi
tions
and
to w
hich
the
read
er b
rings
per
sona
l int
eres
t and
/or
know
ledg
e. E
xam
ples
may
incl
ude
shor
t, st
raig
htfo
rwar
d de
scrip
tions
of p
erso
ns, p
lace
s, a
nd th
ings
writ
ten
for
a w
ide
audi
ence
.
Inte
rmed
iate
Hig
hA
ble
to r
ead
cons
iste
ntly
with
full
unde
rsta
ndin
g si
mpl
e co
nnec
ted
text
s de
alin
g w
ith b
asic
per
sona
l and
soc
ial
need
s ab
out w
hich
the
read
er h
as p
erso
nal i
nter
est a
nd/o
r kn
owle
dge.
Can
get
som
e m
ain
idea
s an
d in
form
a-tio
n fr
om te
xts
at th
e ne
xt h
ighe
r le
vel f
eatu
ring
desc
riptio
n an
d na
rrat
ion.
Str
uctu
ral c
ompl
exity
may
inte
rfer
ew
ith c
ompr
ehen
sion
; for
exa
mpl
e, b
asic
gra
mm
atic
al r
elat
ions
may
be
mis
inte
rpre
ted
and
tem
pora
l ref
eren
ces
may
rel
y pr
imar
ily o
n le
xica
l ite
ms.
Has
som
e di
fficu
lty w
ith th
e co
hesi
ve fa
ctor
s in
dis
cour
se, s
uch
as m
at-
chin
g pr
onou
ns w
ith r
efer
ents
. Whi
le te
xts
do n
ot d
iffer
sig
nific
antly
from
thos
e at
the
Adv
ance
d le
vel,
com
-pr
ehea
tion
is le
ss c
onsi
sten
t. M
ay h
ave
to r
ead
mat
eria
l sev
eral
tim
es fo
r un
ders
tand
ing.
209
BE
ST
CO
PY
AV
AIL
AB
iE
2.1
Abl
e to
rea
d so
mew
hat l
onge
r pros
e of
sev
eral
par
agra
phs
in le
ngth
, par
ticul
arly
if p
rese
nted
with
a c
lear
unde
rlyin
g st
ruct
ure.
The
pro
se is
pre
dom
inan
tly in
fond
er s
tate
=pa
ttern
s. R
eade
r ge
ts th
e m
ain
idea
s an
dfa
cts
and
mis
sies
som
e du
mb.
Com
preh
ensi
on d
eriv
es n
ot o
nly
from
situ
atio
nal a
nd s
ubje
ct m
atte
r kn
owle
dge
but f
rom
Mam
as c
ontr
ol o
f the
lang
uage
. Tex
tsat
this
leve
l inc
lude
des
crip
tions
and
nar
ratio
ns s
uch
assi
mpl
e Ik
on s
torie
s, s
ews
hats
, bib
liogr
aphi
cal i
nfor
mat
ion,
soc
ial N
otic
es,
pers
onal
cor
nspo
nden
ce r
outin
ized
Mai
ms
kite
s an
d si
mpl
e te
chni
cal m
ania
' writ
ing
for
the
gene
ral r
eade
r.
Adv
ance
d-P
lus
Abl
e to
follo
w e
ssen
tial p
oint
s of
wrie
st d
isco
urse
at th
e S
uper
ior
leve
l in
area
s of
spe
cial
inte
rest
or
know
ledg
e.A
ble
to s
wde
rsta
md
part
s of
text
s w
hich
we
conc
eptu
ally
abs
trac
t and
kagu
ktic
agy
com
plex
, and
/or
text
s w
hich
trea
t um
farw
ilks
topi
cs a
nd s
ituat
ions
on w
dl a
s so
me
tens
whi
ch in
volv
eas
pect
s of
targ
et-la
ngua
ge c
ultu
re.
Abl
e S
o co
mpr
dsen
d th
e fa
cts
to m
ake
appr
opria
te in
fere
nces
. An
asap
* aw
aren
ess
of th
e ae
sthe
tic p
rope
r-tie
s at
Wow
and
of i
ts li
tera
ry s
tyle
s pe
rmits
com
preh
ario
a of
a w
ider
var
iety
of t
ens,
incl
udin
g W
ren.
Mie
r m
dent
amdi
ap m
ay c
row
.
Sup
erio
r
Dis
tingu
ishe
d
211
Abl
e to
rea
d w
ith a
lmos
t com
plet
e co
mpr
ehea
sion
and
at n
orm
alsp
eed
expa
tiato
r), p
rose
on
unfa
mili
ar s
ub-
ject
s an
d a
varie
ty o
f lite
rary
text
s. R
eadi
ng a
bilit
y is
not
depe
nden
t on
subj
ect m
atte
r kn
owle
dge,
alth
ough
the
read
er is
not
exp
ecte
d to
com
preh
end
thor
ough
ly te
xts
whi
ch a
re h
ighl
y de
pend
ent o
n kn
owle
dge
of th
eta
rget
cul
ture
. Rea
ds e
asily
for
*NU
M S
uper
ior-
leve
l tex
ts fe
atur
e hy
poth
eses
,ar
gum
enta
tion
and
supp
orte
dop
inio
ns a
nd io
dide
gra
mm
atic
al p
atte
rns
and
voca
bula
ry o
rdin
arily
enc
ount
ered
in a
cade
mic
/pro
fess
iona
lre
adie
s. A
t thi
s le
vel,
due
to th
e co
ntro
l of g
ener
al v
ocab
ular
y an
dst
ruct
ure,
the
read
er is
alm
ost a
lway
s ab
leto
mat
ch th
e sa
mm
ings
der
ived
from
exu
alia
guis
tic k
now
ledg
e w
ithm
eani
ngs
deriv
ed fr
om k
now
ledg
e of
the
know
, allo
win
g fo
r sm
ooth
and
effi
cien
t rea
ding
of d
iver
sew
as. O
ccas
iona
l mis
unde
rsta
ndin
gs m
ay s
till
occu
r; fo
r ex
ampl
e, th
e re
ader
may
exp
erie
nce
som
e di
fficu
lty w
ith u
nusu
ally
com
plex
str
uctu
res
and
low
-fr
eque
ncy
idio
ms.
At t
he S
uper
ior
leve
l the
rea
der
can
mat
ch s
trat
egie
s,to
p-do
wn
or b
otto
m-u
p, w
hich
are
mos
t IM
prop
riase
to th
e te
xt. (
Top
-dow
n st
rate
gies
rel
y on
rea
l-war
ldkn
owle
dge
and
pred
ictio
n ba
sed
on g
enre
and
orga
niza
tiona
l sch
eme
of th
e te
xt. B
otto
ms -
up s
trat
egie
s re
ly o
a ac
tual
ling
uist
ic k
now
ledg
e.)
Mat
eria
l at
this
leve
l will
indu
de a
var
iety
of l
itera
ry te
xts,
edi
toria
ls, co
rres
pond
ence
, gen
eral
rep
orts
and
tech
nica
l mat
eria
lin
pro
fess
iona
l fie
lds.
Rer
eadi
ng is
rar
ely
nece
ssar
y, a
nd m
isre
adin
g is
rar
e.
Abl
e to
rea
d flu
ently
and
acc
urat
ely
1110
44 s
tyle
s an
d fo
rms
of th
ela
ngua
ge p
ertin
ent t
o ac
adem
ic a
nd p
rofe
s-si
onal
and
s. A
ble
to r
elat
e in
fere
nces
in th
e te
xt to
rea
l-wor
ldkn
owle
dge
and
unde
rsta
nd a
lmos
t all
soci
o-lin
guis
tic a
nd c
ultu
ral r
efer
ence
s by
pro
cess
ing
lang
uage
from
with
in th
e cu
ltura
lfr
amew
ork.
Abl
e to
und
er-
stan
d a
writ
er's
use
of n
uanc
e an
d su
btle
ty. C
an r
eadi
ly fo
llow
unpr
edic
tabl
e tu
rns
of th
ough
t and
aut
hor
inte
nt in
suc
h m
ater
ials
as
soph
istic
ated
edi
toria
ls, s
peci
aliz
edjo
urna
l art
icle
s, a
nd li
tera
ry te
xts
such
as
nove
ls,
play
s, p
oem
s, a
s w
ell a
s in
any
sub
ject
mat
ter
area
dire
cted
to th
ege
nera
l rea
der.
1ST
CO
PY
AV
AIL
AP
LE
APPENDIX B
Tables of Frequencyof All Strategy Use
by Spanish 1 Studentsin Spring 1986:
VocabularyWriting
Reading/Grammar Cloze
21,
AF'PEN)D4
Average Frequency and Percent of Strategy Useof Effeotive and kieffeotive Spanish 1 Students During
VOCABULARY ACTIVITY, SPRIG 1986
LearningStrategy
Effective(n=13)
N %
Ineffective(n=6)
N Si
Total(n=19)
N %
METACOGNITNE
Ing Mog
Planning 0.0 0.0 C2 2.9 0.1 1.1
Selective Attention 0.0 0.0 0.7 11.8 0.2 4.7
Self-management 0.1 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1
Subtotal, Planning 0.1 1.9 0.8 14.7 0.3 7.0
Self-monitoring 3.6 90.4 3.0 52.9 3.4 75.6
Evaluation
0.3 7.7 1.8 32.4 0.8 17.4Self-evaluation
TOTAL, METACOGNITIVE 4.0 100.0 5.7 100.0 4.5 100.0
cootimvE STRATEOES
Repetition 0.5 4.0 0.8 4.8 0.9 4.3Resourcing 0.5 4.0 2.0 11.5 1.0 6.8Translation 6.5 48.0 7.8 452 7.0 47.0
Grouping 02 1.1 0.3 1.9 02 1.4
Deduction /induction 0.6 4.5 0.7 3.9 0.9 4.3
Substitution 0.1 0.0* 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0*Imagery 0.8 5.6 0.5 2.9 0.7 4.6
Elaboration 3.1 22.6 3.3 19.2 32 21.4
Transfer 0.8 5.6 0.3 1.9 0.6 4.3Informing 0.5 4.0 1.5 8.7 0.8 5.7
TOTAL, COGNITIVE 13.6 100.0 17.3 100.0 142 100.0
SOCIAL AFFECTIVE STRATUMS**
Question for Clot'. 3.0 100.0 5.3 100.0 3.7 100.0
TOTAL, ALL STRATEOES 20.6 28.3 23.1
* Loss than III.** Social affec4tve strategies of cooperation and self-talk are not included here; the thhic aloud
interviews did not olio* these strategies.NOTE: Numbers and percentages mull vary slifittly due to rounding. 2 14
APP010411Average Frequenoy ad Parent of Strategy Use
of Effective and ineffootive Simi& 1 Students DuringWRITING; SPRING 1986
LearningStrategy
Effective0%09)
fl 91
ineffectiveOr*
N 16
Total(n14)
N 95
ETAC00NITNE
MegPlanning 52 41.7 72 43.9 5.8 42.6
Stlfmanagsment 0.7 5.6 0.4 2.4 0.6 4.2
_Subtotal, Planning 5.7 472 7.6 4E,.3 6.4 46.8
MOWNSelf-monitoring
gribei92
42 352 62 37.8 4.9 36.3
Self-evaluatko 2.1 17.6 2.6 15.9 2.3 16.8
TOM, METACOONMYE 12.0 100.0 16.4 100.0 13.6 100.0
COONff NE STRATEGIES
Repetition 02 1.7 0.4 2.7 03 2.1
Resoureing 0.1 1.0 1.8 12.0 0.7 53Translation 3.4 27.4 6.0 40.0 4.4 32.4
Ore** 0.3 2.7 0.6 4.0 0.4 32Deduction /induction 12 9.7 0.4 2.7 0.9 6.9
Soastitution 0.9 7.1 1.4 9.3 1.1 8.0
illaWil 0.6 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.7Elaboration 51) 392 4.4 29.3 42 35.6
Transfer 0.3 2.7 0.0 01) 02 1.6
Smenbirkkg 0.4 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.1
TOTAL, COMMA 12.6 100.0 152 1001) 13.4 1002
SOCIAL maim STRATEOES4
OFastise fir Cir. 43 1001) 6.6 10043 5.1 1001)
TOTAL, ALL STRATEOES 28.9 38.0 32.1
Sabi of stratviits of sesparatto and self talc ars Mt iralwied Mr.; No Wit algalkisrvimps did ad lbit lase
NOW: Noesrs sad paradeps m vamp AV" No is roadag.NOTE: The *at*. a( dIroded MIaMIoa, Motto atistba, wit-takkg, auNterg ropreasatation,
and iallereasks de rat war it Nrie table Imam aostakat *pared is one them drily Ns
2N")
APPENDIX
Average Frequency and Percent of Strategy Use of Effective Spanish 1 Students DuringCLOZE ACTIVITY, SPRING 1986
LearningStrategy
Effective(n=10)
N 95
METACOGNITNEPlannkbq
Planning 0.2 2.4
Directed Attention 0.2 2.4
Selective Attention 02 2.4
Self-management 0.3 3.5
Subtotal, Planning 0.9 10.6
Monitoring
Self- monitoring 6.0 70.6
Evaluation
Self-evaluation 1.6 18.8
TOTAL, METACOGNITIVE 8.5 100.0
COGNITIVE STRATEGES
Repetition 0.7 1.6
Resoureing 1.1 2.6
Translation 162 37.9
Grouping 0.1 0.0*
Deductionilnduction 4.7 11.0
Substitution 0.1 0.0*
klb4erll 0.5 12Elaboration 7.0 16.4
Transfer 3.7 8.67
Inferencing 7.7 18.0
Summarizing 1.0 2.3
TOTAL, COGNITIVE 422 100.0
SOCIAL AFFECTIVE STRATEGES**
Question for Clar. 5.5 100.0
TOTAL, ALL STRATEOES 56.8
Figures are shcnvn for only the
effective students because
only 2 ineffective students
progressed through the
workbook to this activity .
* Loss than 1911.
** Social athott0 strategies of cooperation and solf-talk an not iloluded hero; the think aloudinterviews did not olio* those strategies.
NOTE: Numbers and percentages may vary slightly duo to rounding.
210
APPENDIX C
Spanish 1, Spring 1986Student Workbook Pages:
Vocabulary,"The Family Tree"
Reading/Grammar Cloze,"A Typical Day for Juan and Rosa"
RicardoGonzilez
ClaraGonzilez
SusanaGonzglez
Carlos Gonzalez
Sergio
Pedro Isabel
THE FAMILY TREE
Pilar LopezFernando Lopez
Teresa Rosa
Instructions: Each of the sentences below is missing a word. The sentencesare based on the above family tree. Us,ing the informationpresented in the family tree, fill in each blank space belowwith an appropriate word in Spanish to describe the familyrelationship.
1. Mi es Gonzglez.
2. El nombre de mi es Susana Gonzalez.
3. Hay tres hijos en mi familia: y yo.
4. Fernando Lopez es mi Pilar Lopez es su
5. Tengo dos . Se ilaman Teresa y Rosa.
Pictures are drawn from Yorkey, R.C., Barrutia, R., Chamot, A.U.,Rainey, 1.0., Gonzalez, J.B., Ney, J.W., & Woolf, W.L. (1984).New InterCom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
22 1 S
Student Workbook
Activity 5Grammar and Reading
Instructions: Below is a paragraph entitled "A Typical Day for Juan andHis Sister Rosa." It describes Juan's day. Many of theverbs appear in their infinitive form. You are to conjugatethese verbs into their action form. The first such verbis done for you as an example.
Also, some nouns are missing. These are marked by a blankline and the letter (J ( 0). Try to fill in theseblank spaces with an appropriate word. Think Aloud as youwork!
..:abla Juan:
Yo me levanto a las siete. Inmediatamente Wt' 6L;Le (bariarse).
Rosa (barlarse) despu4s de mi. A las siete y media, vamos a
la 6t para el desayuno. A las ocho salimos de casa y (ir)
a la escuela. Voy a mi ON de matematicas y Rosa (ir) a
su clase de historia. A las tres de la tarde regresamos juntos a la
Mama nos permite mirar el televisor hasta las g A esa Nora, toda
la familia, incluso mi padre, se sienta a comer. Despu4S de la cena, Rosa y
yo tenemos que (estudiar). Rosa es mejor estudiante que
yo; ella siempre (terminar) primero. A las diez en punto
ella va a dormir, pero yo no. Me acuesto a las once porque yo soy mayor.
(Source unknown.)
2 15
APPENDIX D
Spanish 3, Spring 1986Student WorkboOk Pages:
Listening,"Francisco Ramirez Velasco, minero"
Writing,"A Busy Intersection"
Reading/Grammar Cloze,"Un Viaje a Madrid"
Student WorkbookLevel 3Session 1
Activity 2Listening to a Monologue
Introduction: You are about to listen to a monologue by a young man namedFrancisco Ramirez Velasco. He lives in South America. Heis going to tell you a bit about himself and his country.
There are two pauses on the tape, one in the middle and oneat the end. Each is marked by the sound of a soft bell.When the bell rings, we would like you to think aloud abouthow you are understanding the Spanish you hear.
Keep the following questions in mind as you listen.
1. What is Francisco's nickname in the village?
2. In what country does Francisco live? Where in this country does he live?
3. What does Francisco do for a living?
4. Does Francisco go to school during the day or at night? What subjectsdoes he study?
5. How many students are in the program? What do they do for a living?
22;3
Script of the Listening MonologueSpanish 3, Spring 1986
Me liamo Francisco Ramirez Velasco, pero en el pueblo dondevivo me Ilaman Pancho. Soy boliviano. Vivo en un lugar muyfrio en las montaWas de los Andes. (PAUSE)
En mi pueblo hay muchas minas. Bolivia es un pais muy ricoen productos minerales. Yo trabajo en una mina toda la semanade lunes a sabado. Soy minero. (PAUSE)
Yo no voy a la escuela durante el dia con los otros muchachosdel pueblo. Yo voy a una clase especial de siete a diez de lanoche. En la clase estudiamos espan'ol, historia, y matemSticas.(PAUSE)
Hay mg's de veinte estudiantes en el programa nocturno. Todosson mineros. Trabajan en las minas muchas horas durante eldia. (FINAL PAUSE)
Translation of Listening Monologue
My name is Francisco Ramirez Velasco, but in the village whereI live they call me Pancho. I'm bolivian. I live in a verycold place in the Andes Mountains.
In my village there are many mines. Bolivia is a country that'svery rich in mineral products. I work in a mine all week fromMonday to Saturday. I'm a miner.
I don't go to school during the day with the other young menin the village. I go to a special class from seven to ten atnight. In class we study Spanish, history and math.
There are more than 20 students in the evening program. All ofthem are miners. They work in the mines many hours during theday.
Drawn from Lamadrid et. al (1974), page 116.
Student WorkbookLevel 5
Activity 5Writing in Spanish
Instructions: Look at the picture below. As you can see, there is somethinghappening on every street corner and in the street itself. Wewould like you to pick a part of the picture to describe. Youmay describe more than one part, if you like.
Please write a short paragraph in Spanish describing the sectionof the picture that you choose. .Think aloud as you work, sayingwhat is going through your mind as you formulate each sentencein Spanish. Try to be as complete as possible. Work as youwould normally work, if given a writing assignment in Spanish.
Picture drawn from Yorkey, Barrutia, R., Chamot, A.U., Rainey, I.D.,Gonzalez, J.B., Ney, J.W., S Woolf,.W.L. (1984). New InterCom 3 (p. 82).Boston: Heinle S Heinle.
2'4-3
Student WorkbookLevel 3Grammar and Reading
Activity 4Reading and Grammar
Instructions: Below is a paragraph entitled "Un Viaje a Madrid." It describesJuanita's visit to Madrid. Many of the verbs appear in theirinfinitive form. You are to conjugate these verbs into theiraction form, if appropriate. Some verbs will be conjugated intothe present tense, others into the past, still others into thesubjunctive. The first such verb is done for you as an example.
Think Aloud as you work!
Habla Juanita Cotero:
El alb pasado yo (ir) a Madrid para 0.5 AtA- (visitar)
a mi prima Clara. AdemSs de ser mi prima, ella (sor) buena amiga
tambien. Ella (vivir) con su familia en una casa tan enorme
que yo (poder) tener mi propria alcoba. Durante el dia Clara
me (11evar) en su coche por toda la ciudad. iAhora yo conozco
muy bien a Madrid! Nosotros
que yo no
(divertirse) tanto
(querer) irme. Pero, al fin (tener)
que regresar a los Estados Unidos. Cuando yo me despidide ella en el aeropuerto,
ella me (dar) un abrazo fuerte y me (decir) :
"Juanita yo espero que to ( poder) visitarme el allo que
(venir) ." iY eso es exactamente lo que yo voy a hacer!
Translation of Reading and Grammar Activity (Un Viaje a Madrid; A trip to Madrid)
Juanita Cotero is speaking:
Last year I went to Madrid to visit my cousin Clara. Besides being my cousin,
she is also a good friend. She lives with her family in a house that's so big
I could have my own room. During the day Clara took me all over the city in
her car. Now I know Madrid very well! We had such a good time that I didn't want
to leave. But, in the end I had to return to the United States. When I said
good-bye to her in the airport she gave me a strong hug and told me: "Juanita,
I hope that you can visit me next year." And that's exactly what I'm going to do!
24
APPENDIX E
Tables of Frequencyof All Strategy Useby Spanish 3 Students
in Spring 1986:
ListeningWriting
Reading/Grammar Cloze
2 -
L
APPRISINAvers" Freeman/ ad Pereent et Strategy Use
of Effeotive and lesthetive ilpanth 3 Students:LISTE11118, WM 1906
LearningStrategy
EffectiveGPO
N 91
IneffectiveOr4)
N 11
TotalOwl 1)
N %
mnACOONIT NE
MEMPlanning 0.4 3.6 0.8 8.1 0.6 5.0
Direetsd Attention 0.4 3.6 0.5 5.4 0.5 4.1
Selective Attention 3A 29.8 1.3 13.5 2.7 24.8
Self-management 0 4 3A 1.0 102 0.6 59Subtotal, Plain* 4.9 40.5 33 372 4.4 39.7
MIMEOSelfinenitering 5.4 452 5.3 569 5.4 409
RastaSelf-evaleatio 1.7 14.3 0.5 5.4 1.3 11 .6
TOTAL, METACOONITIVE 12D 100.0 9.3 100.0 11.0 1000
COON1TNE STRATUMS
Repetition 0.3 1.8 0.5 5.7 0.4 29Ramiro* 0.0 0.0 05 5.7 02 1.4
Translation 0.9 59 1.0 11.4 0.9 6.9
Nde-taking 43 27.3 13 17.1 3.3 24.8
Dednotindindootion OA OA 0.3 2.9 0.1 1.0
WW1 0.9 5.5 08 8.6 09 62Maki" Retwasentat. 0.1 1.0 0.3 2.9 02 1.4
Elaboration 5.7 36.4 0.8 8.6 3.9 29.7
Trawler 0.9 55 13 14.3 1.0 7.6lidera** 2.4 153 1.8 20.0 22 16.6
Summorideg 0.3 1 A 03 2.9 0.3 2.1
TOTM., COGNITNE 15.7 100B 8.8 100.0 132 100.0
SOCIAL AFFECTNE STRATEOES*
%intim for Mr. 1.1 100.0 2.0 100.0 1.5 100.0
TOTM., M L STRATUMS 28.9 2GB 25.6
Nodal ;MAW stainies of seeporatios ar d solf-talcore rat Wiled tire; the NA* algidinlervirws did *MAW Ow strakiks.
NOTE: Nomisrs adwindow mg vim iillybtV did te rend*
2 27 BEST COPY AVAILABLE
APPENDIX
Average Frequency and Percent of Strategy Useof Effective and Ineffective Spanish 3 Students:
WRITING, SPRING 1986
LearningStrategy
Effective. (n=7)N 96
Ineffective(n=3)
N 96
Total(n=10)
N 96
METACOGNITIVE
12Mkg
Planning 11.1 29.0 5.3 28.1 9.4 28.8
Seleotive Attention 0.3 0.0* 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0*Self-management 0.1 2.6 0.3 1.8 0.8 2.5
Subtotal, Planning 12.4 32.3 5.7 29.8 10.4 31.9
Self-monitoring 16.0 41.6 9.3 49.1 14.0 42.9
Exihem
Self-evaluation 10.0 26.0 4.0 21.1 82 252TOTAL, METACOGNITIVE 38.4 100.0 19.0 100.0 32.6 100.0
COGNITIVE STRATUMS
Repetition 2.0 6.5 0.7 3.4 1.6 5.9
Resourcing 0.9 2.8 1.7 8.5 1.1 4.0
Translation 7.9 25.7 6.7 33.9 7.5 27.5
Oros** 0.6 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.5
Note-taking 0.1 0.0* 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0*Deduction/Induction 4.3 14.0 1.7 8.5 3.5 12.8
substitution 4.4 14.5 0.7 3.4 3.3 12.1
kroPrY 0.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.1
Elaboration 6.3 20.6 5.7 282 6.1 22.3
Transfer 2.1 7.0 1.0 5.1 1.8 6.6Inforenoing 0.7 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.8
Sunvnatidng 0.9 2.8 1.7 8.5 1.1 4.0TOTAL, COEIIITIVE 30.6 100.0 19.7 100.0 273 100.0
SOCIAL AFFECTIVE STRATEGIES**
Question for Clar. 5.7 100.0 9.0 100.0 6.4 100.0
TOTAL, ALL STRATEGIES 74.7 46.7 66.3
* Lest than 1*.** Social affective strategies of cooperation and self-talk are not included here; the think aloud
Interviews did net elicit these strategies.NOTE: theweers and percentages may vary slightly 6A to rounding. 2 2s
OINNIONINI
&trap Frommaj ad Portant at *aim iisoof Effective and ineffective Spool* 3 Students During
MOM, SPRING 1906
LearningStrategy
Effective. Oren
N 11
Ineffective(nr4)
N 9I
Total(rv11)
N %
METACOONITIYE
MiltsPlanning 0.4 22 05 5.4 0.5 2.9
Directed Attention 0.4 22 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.7
Selective Attention 0.4 22 1.0 101 0.6 4.1
Self-rnosagornent 0.9 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 3.5
91total, Plea* 2.1 11.1 15 162 1.9 122
MAWR.Selfirsniterirq 14.1 73.3 6.3 67.6 11.3 72.1
LYANIMSelf-tvaloation 3.0 15.6 15 162 25 15.7
TOTAL, METACOOMTNE 19.3 100.0 9.3 100.0 15.6 100.0
COONITNE STRATEOES
Repetitien 0.3 0.1 05 22 0.4 12Resewoing 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.2 02 0.1
Translation 9.1 27.1 6.3 271 9.1 27.3
Ore** 0.6 25 0.0 0.0 0.4 12Note-toicap 0.6 25 0.3 1.1 05 15Deactionnniastion 11.0 32.6 7.0 31.1 93 322
ImallirV 09 0.1 0.3 1.1 0.3 0.1
Elaberatien 9.1 242 4.3 19.9 6.7 22.7
Trader 0.6 2.5 1.0 4.4 0.7 25Iriferensing 1.9 51 1.5 6.7 1.7 SAeassurising 12 3.9 1.0 4.4 12 4.0
TOM., COWIN 33.7 100.0 225 100.0 29.6 100.0
SOCK AFFECTNE STRATEOES
Oastion for Clor. 4.4 100.0 5.9 100.0 4.9 100.0
TOTAL, AL STRATUMS 57.4 37.5 502
Said iNINtlm strategies of moporatim ate solf-talc are rat Naldoi hero; ita Wyk abutisiorvina Ni rat olio* tom strablim.
NOTE: laabors ad palmtop; m vans s111Atte 41a Is ram**
229
APPENDIX F
Spanish 5, Spring 1986Student Workbook Pages:
Reading/Grammar Cloze"Los desaparecidos"
Writing(see picture in Appendix D)
Student WorkbookLevel 5
Activity 4Reading and Grammar
Instructions: Below is a paragraph entitled "Los desaparecidos." Many ofthe verbs appear in their infinitive form. You are to conjugatethese verbs into their action form. The first such verb isdone for you as an example. Think Aloud as you work!
Casi cada dfa en los periOdicos de Madrid o Barcelona se pueden leer
articulos como este: "Ha 011616LIVQ.i.(10 (desaparecer) de la casa de
sus padres el chico de dieciseis dribs, X. Lleva pantalones y sueter azules,
y (ser) alto y robusto. Si puede identificar al muchacho por
esta foto, (11amar) por telefono a sus padres."
En el pasado, esto (occurir) poco, y ademgS era siempre en
serio. El adolescente iba a otro pals, a otra ciudad, (hacerse)
un hombre, y cuando tenfa una posicicin, una mujer, y a veces unos hijos,
(volver) a la casa de sus padres, feliz de haber realizado
estas cosas "por sus propios medios."
no
Pero ahora hay una diferencia fundamental. Hoy dia, los adolescentes
(querer) escaparse a otro pais ni a otra ciudad. El
objetivo (ser) vivir en la misma ciudad de sus padres, pero
en otro apartamento. El allio pasado la mayorla de los jcfmenes alemanes que
(entrar) en la Universidad de Berlin (tener)
su residencia aparte de sus padres, aunque en la misma ciudad.
Drawn from Rivers, W.M., Azevedo, M.M., Heflin, W.H., & Hyman-Opler, R.(1976). A practical guide to the teaching of Spanish (p. 208).New York: Oxford University Press.
APPENDIX G
Tables of Frequencyof All Strategy Useby Spanish 5 Students
in Spring 1986:
Reading/Grammar Cloze
2 '
EXHIBIT III - 19
Strategies Showing Differences in Average UsageBetween Effective and Less Effective Spanish 5 Students
During the CLOZE. Spring 1986
LearningStrategy
Effective(n-2)
N X
Less Effective(n2)
N X
Metacoonitive Strateaies.
Selective Attention 2.5 14.3 0.0
Self-monitoring 8.0 45.7 5.5 61.1
Self-evaluation 7.0 40.0 3.5 38.9
T lotacognitive
comithiltrinagin
17.5 100.0 9.0 100.0
Translation 5.0 18.6 10.5 39.6
Deduction/Induction 7.0 25.9 10.0 37.7
Elaboration 9.5 352 2.5 9.4
Infer.encing 4.0 14.8 1.0 3.8
Other Cognitive 1.5 5.5 2.5 9.4
Total, Cognitive 27.0 100.0 26.5 100.0
Social/Affecthe Stratanies
Questioning for ClarNerif 1.0 66.7 6.0 100.0
Self-talk 0.5 33.3 0.0
Total. Social/Affective 1.5 100.0 6.0 100.0
TOTAL. ALL STRATEGIES 46.0 41.5
Note: Marlboro and percentages may vary slightly due to rounding.
1.1 1 -81
2 3 3
APPENDIX H
Spanish 4, Spring 1987Student Workbook Pages:
Listening"Prohibido Fumar en el Tranvia"
Writing"A Crowded Hotel Lobby"
Drawn from Rivers, W.M., Azevedo, M.M., Heflin, W.H., &Hyman-Opler, R. (1976). A practical guide to the teaching ofSpanish (p. 199). New York: Oxford University Press.
Listening Script for "Prohibido Fumar en el Tranvia"
Un tranvia va por la calle Cangallo en Buenos Aires. 1111 viejocon una pipa en la boca lo detiene en una esquina y sube. Pagasus diez centavos al cobrador y se sienta. Se sienta directa-mente bajo un letrero que dice: PROHIBIDO FUMAR EN EL TRANVIA.Sigue con la pipa en la boca. (PAUSE)
El cobrador lo nota,y se acerca. "Perdone Ud., senor," dice elcobrador, "pero esta prohibido fumar en el tranv(a.""Lo se," responde el de la pipa. "Aqui tenemos un letrero quelo anuncia." Y seriala el letrero. (PAUSE)
"Muy bien," continua el cobrador, "pero si Ud. insiste en fumar,tengo que hacerle bajar del tranv.ia. Es el reglamento.""No insisto en fumar," dice el viejo, que todavia tiene en laboca la famosa pipa, de la cual sube el humo en espiral. (PAUSE)
"Luego deje Ud. de fumar," responde el cobrador."No estoy fumando," vuelve a decir el pasajero."Pues,cino tiene Ud. is pipa en la boca?" pregunta el cobrador."Claro que tengo la pipa en la boca," dice el viejo."Y no tiene tabaco en la pipa ?" pregunta el cobrador."Por supuesto," responde el otro. 'Pero no estoy fumando."
(PAUSE)
El cobrador dice, "4;Y no sale humo de la pipa?""Claro," vuelve a decir el viejo, "pero digo que no estoyfumando." Y luego arTade, extendiendo un pie delante delcobrador, "EVe Ud. mis pies? Llevo zapatos, un zapato en cadapie, pero eso no significa que estoy caminando a pie." (PAUSE)
Ante la lOgica del pasajero, el cobrador tiene que retirarsey no le molesta mss. (FINAL PAUSE)
(Translation provided on the next page.)
235
Translation "No Smoking in the Streetcar"
A streetcar goes down the street Cangallo in Buenos Aires. Anold man with a pipe in his mouth stops the streetcar on a cornerand gets on. He pays his ten centavos to the conductor and sitsdown. He sits directly underneath of a sign that says: SMOKINGIS NOT ALLOWED IN THE STREETCAR. He continues with the pipein his mouth.
The conductor notices this and goes up to him. "Excuse me, sir,"says the conductor, "but smoking is not allowed in the streetcar.""I know," responds he of the pipe. "Here we have a sign thatsays so." And he points to the sign.
"Very well," continues the conductor, "but if you insist onsmoking, I'm going to have to make you get off the streetcar.It's the law.""I'm not insisting on smoking," says the old man, who still has,in his mouth, the famous pipe,from which smoke is rising in a spiral.
"Then stop smoking," responds the conductor."I'm not smoking," repeats the passenger."Don't you have the pipe in your mouth?" asks the conductor."Of course I have the pipe in my mouth," says the old man."And isn't there tobacco in the pipe?" asks the conductor."Of course," responds the other. "But I'm not smoking."
The conductor says, "And isn't smoke coming out of the pipe?""Clearly," returns the old man, "but I tell you I'm not smoking."And then he adds, extending his foot in front of the conductor,"Do you see my feet? I'm wearing shoes, a shoe on each foot,but that doesn't mean that I'm walking on foot."
Faced with the logic of the passenger, the conductor ha% towithdraw and he doesn't bother him anymore.
Picture used at all levels for writing, Spring 1987.
WRITING
Drawn from: World English 4: The HBJ English Program.(p. 94).New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
q 2
